If you listen to NPR, or get Scientific America, or are breathing
-you've heard of Black Matter. And you've heard the Art Speak
phrase Negative Space (to describe a hole in some Positive Space).

Well here are some more - this time from the back cover of the
February 2007 (aren't we still in 206?) isssue of Woodwork
magazine. Here are some of the new Art Speak phrases
contained in William Hunter's description of his piece, titled
"Creation"
- deconstruction (the piece blew up on the lathe)
- reconstruction (I stuck the pieces back together)
- wood/space relationship (I didn't fit things together well)
(this next one's my new all time favorite)
- the presence of abscence (you'll notice the absence
of the pieces I couldn't find)
- complexity of visual references (you may get a
headache trying to figure out what I was trying
to turn when things went all to hell)

From the photo of the piece it lookes like he mounted
a gnarly jarrah bowl on his lathe and tried to get two
bowls out of it with a "bowl saver" set up (curved gouge
that cuts down on waste and hollowing time by allowing
you to basically scoop out bowl blanks from a large
chunk of spinning wod)
\ \ \
) ) )
/ / /
The first, smallest bowl blank came out ok.
The second almost came out - then broke into three
or four pieces, leaving the rest of the burl with a
broken hole in it. The pieces were put together,
avoiding having any parts line up with each other,
the bowl he did get sits in the middle of the remaining
pieces of wood.

When I hear FOX news misuse words, abuse words
and use terms and phrases that make you go "HUH!??"
it comes as no surprise. And when I hear the
president of the United States repeatedly say
"I'm the decider." you soon come to expect that he's
going to say, and subsequently repeat, something
that's going to make every english teach or professor
he ever had want to hide under a rock, or perhaps
want to hit the guy WITH a rock - while yelling "Decision
Maker!" or "It's my decision!" I wonder if any 4th
grade teacher is torturing his or her students by
telling them to look up the definition of "decider"
in the dictionary?

Now Woodwork magazine exposes their readers to
some of today's Studio Woodworkers, so I expect
the wording in articles and captions to be more
artsy than techie. But "the presence of absence"?
The William Hunter piece was obviously turned -
did they have to use "spin" in the description as
well?

Maybe it's just that my 2006 Bull**** Tank is
full and My Cup Runneth Over.

charlie b

Note: 206 should be 2006

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 01:18:49 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

If you listen to NPR, or get Scientific America, or are breathing
-you've heard of Black Matter. And you've heard the Art Speak
phrase Negative Space (to describe a hole in some Positive Space).

Well here are some more - this time from the back cover of the
February 2007 (aren't we still in 206?) isssue of Woodwork
magazine. Here are some of the new Art Speak phrases
contained in William Hunter's description of his piece, titled
"Creation"
- deconstruction (the piece blew up on the lathe)
- reconstruction (I stuck the pieces back together)
- wood/space relationship (I didn't fit things together well)
(this next one's my new all time favorite)
- the presence of abscence (you'll notice the absence
of the pieces I couldn't find)
- complexity of visual references (you may get a
headache trying to figure out what I was trying
to turn when things went all to hell)


Yep, those are pretty hilarious. I think the phrase is "cognitive
dissonance".




When I hear FOX news misuse words, abuse words
and use terms and phrases that make you go "HUH!??"
it comes as no surprise.

Well, the post was funny up to here. Can you give any real examples
where Fox is saying things that don't make sense; or is it maybe they
just don't agree with your ideas. As I've mentioned before, it seems that
those who criticize Fox most heavily don't actually *listen* to or watch
Fox, they are only going by what they have heard others say about Fox. Fox
News web page gets the same slanted newsfeeds from AP and Reuters as all
the other news services. During the election cycle, they were almost as
much in the tank for the Dems as the rest of the media. Calling them
"conservative" is pretty much laughable. The only thing that qualifies
them for that title is the fact that they have real conservatives as
commentators rather than token conservatives to serve as convenient foils
for their liberal commentators like the rest of the media. Even in that
case, at least you know that they are editorializing when they are speaking
compared to the tripe output by the NYT, Time, CNN, etc where they mask
editorials as "news" stories

AP would have been a much better example. Reports from Gaza, for example
where they say Despite the violence, both sides said they would honor the
cease-fi "the wave of violence appeared to be cooling after Sunday
night's truce announcement. But one Fatah supporter was killed and five
people wounded in fighting in the northern town of Jebaliya, and a
16-year-old bystander was shot in the neck during a gunbattle in Gaza
City". In Gaza that's a truce, in Iraq, it's a civil war:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061218/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_politics

Or the case of the Iraqi police spokesman (Jamil Hussein), so often
quoted by AP, but who seems to be unknown to the Iraqi government or
coalition forces:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23740

Or Time, changing their description of Ahmadinijad:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/12/18/description-of-one-of-times-person-of-the-year-candidates-changes/

.. or the reports of the "bombed out amulances", etc. etc.

Maybe it's just that my 2006 Bull**** Tank is
full and My Cup Runneth Over.


Yours isn't the only one

charlie b


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

charlie b wrote:


If you listen to NPR, or get Scientific America, or are breathing
-you've heard of Black Matter. And you've heard the Art Speak
phrase Negative Space (to describe a hole in some Positive Space).

Well here are some more - this time from the back cover of the
February 2007 (aren't we still in 206?) isssue of Woodwork
magazine. Here are some of the new Art Speak phrases
contained in William Hunter's description of his piece, titled
"Creation"
- deconstruction (the piece blew up on the lathe)
- reconstruction (I stuck the pieces back together)
- wood/space relationship (I didn't fit things together well)
(this next one's my new all time favorite)
- the presence of abscence (you'll notice the absence
of the pieces I couldn't find)
- complexity of visual references (you may get a
headache trying to figure out what I was trying
to turn when things went all to hell)

A tour de farce!!

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 01:18:49 -0800, charlie b
wrote:
[snipperized due to an inate desire to be brief]

Maybe it's just that my 2006 Bull**** Tank is
full and My Cup Runneth Over.


Yours isn't the only one

Mine's been full since March 03. Nice to see that so many have slowly
come around to accept that they've been lied to. Many now see that 'The
Decider' is a certifiable lunatic. And our 'Prime Minister' has made a
deal with The Decider that he would make himself look good with a
soft-wood lumber deal in exchange to send off a few of our boys to
Afghanistan. Basterd.

For some light reading:

http://tinyurl.com/y8x7wk

Lobby Dosser wrote:

A tour de farce!!

Succinct.

charlie b

On 26 Dec 2006 10:21:47 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:


Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 01:18:49 -0800, charlie b
wrote:
[snipperized due to an inate desire to be brief]

Maybe it's just that my 2006 Bull**** Tank is
full and My Cup Runneth Over.


Yours isn't the only one

Mine's been full since March 03. Nice to see that so many have slowly
come around to accept that they've been lied to. Many now see that 'The
Decider' is a certifiable lunatic. And our 'Prime Minister' has made a
deal with The Decider that he would make himself look good with a
soft-wood lumber deal in exchange to send off a few of our boys to
Afghanistan. Basterd.


Sounds more like yours has been filled up by the main stream media and
you've bought into it.

Never in history has a country (or countries) had such an internal
resistance movement that have been so vociferously anti-country and yet
been so accepted, tolerated, and even encouraged. The question to Wolf
Blitzer was a valid one, "do you, or don't you want our country to win?"
Looking at the reporting and absolute dotage over the terrorists, my fear
is that, no, they don't.

That Iraq is a problem has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. From the
day the resolution authorizing force was enacted, the press has been crying
"Quagmire!", "Vietnam!", "Torture!", "We are the evil ones!" incessantly.
They have forced us to tie our hands in dealing with the insurgency by
conducting a "politically correct", "thoughtful and careful" war. The
insurgency recognizes that their strongest allies are the US media and are
taking advantage of that fact, thus causing this conflict to go on longer
than if the press had backed the actions and pushed for an early resolution
(that didn't entail our surrender).

Ah well, your side has won the election and I'm sure that the pigeons of
surrender will be flying soon. It's going to take Iran setting off a nuke
in a city near and dear to us before (maybe) people wake up and recognize
that the radical Islamists really mean it when they state that their goals
are to drive Israel into the sea and to see Western civilization killed or
converted. Hopefully it won't be too late for us to wake up and win rather
than being propelled into the 7'th century with a new dark ages coming upon
us.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 01:18:49 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

When I hear FOX news misuse words, abuse words
and use terms and phrases that make you go "HUH!??"
it comes as no surprise.

Well, the post was funny up to here. Can you give any real examples
where Fox is saying things that don't make sense;

FOX
Fair and Balanced

Whole new meaning for the word "fair".
Whole new meaning for the word "balanced".

If you have to keep reminding people that you're
"fair" and "balanced" there's a good chance that
you have to keep saying that to get people to
believe things you're saying that dont' seem to
be either fair, or balanced.

If you've watched Hannity & Combs - even once
you recognize the "are you still beating your wife?"
style of "discussions".

If you've watched the O'Riely (sp?) Factor or
even read the liner on his latest book - I think
its title is Freedom Warrior, you have to get
out the dictionary and check that the definition
of the words haven't, in fact, changed since
last you looked. Hadn't had to do that since Lyndon
Johnson declared War On Poverty and Nixon
declared War On Drugs.

BTW - the definitions
war n.
1. an armed conflicy between nations or states
2. any conflict or struggle; hostiliy
3. the science of military operations
warfare n.
1. the waging of war
2. struggle; strife
warrior n.
a person engaged in, or experienced in, warfare

Now if you go with the second defintion of the first
two words, then technically, Mr. O'Riely (sp?) has
the right to call himself a "warrior" though I'd use
Martin Luther King as a better example.

But if you want an example of the FIRST definition
of the word warrior -I'd have to go with Major
General George Lafayette Mabry Jr., the second
most highly decorated soldier in US history, and
the kindest man you'd ever meet. The evening
of the day he got his first star, his daughter was
kidding him - "Daddy, I bet you even put a star on
your pajamas!" Her brother ran upstairs and came
back with a pajama top - with a star on each shoulder.
This man was truly an American warrior - in the
best meaning of the term.

And if you want to know how he earned the Congressional
Medal of Honor go here
http://www.medalofhonor.com/GeorgeMabry.htm

Relatively speaking, O'Riely is hardly what I would
call a warrior.

Now when a prominent public figure - ok - it was
Bill Clinton, said "I did not have sex with that woman"
it was in fact a lie and called a lie. However, when
Ronald Reagan (pronounced Ray Gun) said "I did not
trade arms (to Iran) for hostages (US hostages held
by Iran - 'til the moment Mr. Reagan took the presi-
dential oath of office) - he got away with later saying
- that he mispoke. We all know that mispeaking
is not the same telling a lie - right?

But back on topic. I expect "spin" from some parts
of The Media, most elected officials and all car ads.
I'm concerned that it's now spilled over into woodworking.

The presence of abscence? That puts my teeth on edge!

Run Alice! Run!!!!!!

charlie b

charlie b:

I am most usually in agreement with you, my brother.

I am certainly in agreement with you about Foxed News.

I am further in agreement with you about your misgivings about the
defitiional level of "War".

War is declared by an act of Congress.

We haven't had one of those in about sixty some years.

Bill O'Reilly is an illiterate ****ing asshole.

(please don't point out his degrees to me)

I would like to point out one thing about Bill Clinton's involvement
with Ms. Lewinsky:

When Bill said, " I did not have sex with that woman.", he was giving
a lawyer's answer to the question but he was still telling the truth.

It is the case that acts such as getting a blowjob and fondling titts
are not considered acts of sexual congress (sic) in the jurisdiction
of Washington, DC, nor in Arkansas.

"Sex", for the purposes of legal proceedings, usually involving
divorce, revolves around the act of penetration of the vaginal cavity.
All such actions of what the general call "Sexual Acts" are not "Sex"
in the legal sense, unless they meet this specific test.

So, Bill did not have "Sex" "With That Woman".

It is both true and false - depending on the venue.

You and I would certainly describe the activity as sexual but a court
would not.

Personally, I wish that Bill Could run again.

I'd vote for Mr. one hell of a lot quicker than I would vote for Mrs.



Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

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

Tom Watson wrote:


I am certainly in agreement with you about Foxed News.

If you want an arguement, change the subject.

I am further in agreement with you about your misgivings about the
defitiional level of "War".

Yep.


War is declared by an act of Congress.

Yep.

We haven't had one of those in about sixty some years.

12/1941 makes it almost 70.

Bill O'Reilly is an illiterate ****ing asshole.

You are far to generous.

IMHO, he ranks somewhere below whale **** and that is at the bottom of
the ocean.


Lew

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:54:32 GMT, Lew Hodgett
wrote:


Lew


I believe that you have defined "consanguinity". in the political,
albeit not the genetic sense.


Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

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

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:54:32 GMT, Lew Hodgett
wrote:



http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm



Lew
Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 26 Dec 2006 10:21:47 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:

Sounds more like yours has been filled up by the main stream media and
you've bought into it.

I did not buy into it, but having read your post, you certainly did.

If Iran has a bomb, nuke them. (Better yet, have Israel do that.)....
but make reallllly sure they do. Not another yellow cake/aluminum tube
story, okay?

btw... being anti-THIS war, doesn't make me a democrat, okay?

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:12:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


When I hear FOX news misuse words, abuse words
and use terms and phrases that make you go "HUH!??"
it comes as no surprise.

Well, the post was funny up to here. Can you give any real examples
where Fox is saying things that don't make sense;

Are you serious?


or is it maybe they
just don't agree with your ideas.

You think that they have ideas?

As I've mentioned before, it seems that
those who criticize Fox most heavily don't actually *listen* to or watch
Fox, they are only going by what they have heard others say about Fox.

OK, that's enough. If the concept of modern day yellow journalism is
not embodied by Foxed News, whom then it doth?


Foxed News cannot spell, they cannot think, they cannot report, they
cannot analyze - they have the stupidest group of media people on the
planet under one roof.

They are an embarrassment to the profession of journalism.

Bill O'Reilly is a complete idiot and would never bbe accepted on the
staff of a true news organization.

They are foisted upon us by a group of neo-nazis from an entirely
different continent and you suck up to them like they are brothers?

You should be ashamed - if you had intelligence enough to be so...




Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

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

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:19:44 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 01:18:49 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

When I hear FOX news misuse words, abuse words
and use terms and phrases that make you go "HUH!??"
it comes as no surprise.

Well, the post was funny up to here. Can you give any real examples
where Fox is saying things that don't make sense;

FOX
Fair and Balanced

Whole new meaning for the word "fair".
Whole new meaning for the word "balanced".

If you have to keep reminding people that you're
"fair" and "balanced" there's a good chance that
you have to keep saying that to get people to
believe things you're saying that dont' seem to
be either fair, or balanced.


.... or maybe you are pointing out that your competition is not necessarily
presenting things in a "fair" or "balanced" way. Witness the NYT, the LA
Times, CNN, ABC, CBS. Editorials masking as news.


If you've watched Hannity & Combs - even once
you recognize the "are you still beating your wife?"
style of "discussions".


The fact that Colmes can't logically defend his positions does not render
the discussions irrelevant.

If you've watched the O'Riely (sp?) Factor or
even read the liner on his latest book - I think
its title is Freedom Warrior, you have to get
out the dictionary and check that the definition
of the words haven't, in fact, changed since
last you looked. Hadn't had to do that since Lyndon
Johnson declared War On Poverty and Nixon
declared War On Drugs.


Oh, I thought this was discussing the news part of Fox news, not the
opinion shows that, you will note, are clearly presented as editorial and
opinion-oriented shows.

.... snip
I'm concerned that it's now spilled over into woodworking.

The presence of abscence? That puts my teeth on edge!


Now, that, we can both agree upon. Have you taken any trips to any art
museums? *That* is an experience that borders on the illogical.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:17:14 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:



Don't even argue with him.

A few years ago, when we argued about the viability of George Bush's
War - where did he stand?

Where is he then, now?


Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

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

charlie b wrote:
I wonder if any 4th
grade teacher is torturing his or her students by
telling them to look up the definition of "decider"
in the dictionary?


decider v. to remove the cider from the glass.

;-)

--
There are two kinds of light--the glow that illuminates, and the glare
that obscures.
James Thurber


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0662-2, 12/26/2006
Tested on: 12/27/2006 12:00:01 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

...post from CB snipped...

Charlie, it's just a false misconception.


--
No dumb questions, just dumb answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland -

Mark & Juanita wrote:

... snip
I'm concerned that it's now spilled over into woodworking.

The presence of abscence? That puts my teeth on edge!


Now, that, we can both agree upon. Have you taken any trips to any art
museums? *That* is an experience that borders on the illogical.


Been a few years. I O.D.ed on them. Vienna - The Goya Exhibit -
fifty of his paintings. Albrecht Durer (sorry no umlat or whatever
it is over the "u") - only two or three of his engravings - but
detailed
to the nth degree. Hans Holbien's work was also represented. In
Florence - Michel Angelo's The David at the Acadamia, stunning.
At the Uffizzi (sp?) - Donatello, Caravagio. At The Duomo - some
amzing carvings - gold leafed so I have no idea of what the wood
was inderneath. Paris - the Picasso Museum - some of his work
is fascinating when you can get close enough to see how it was
done. At the Place Georges Pompidou a speed record motorcycle
almost totally enclosed in cowlings that had some of the most
sensuous lines I've seen anywhere. Spent a LOT of time examining
some incredible massive wooden doors throughout the area that
I could walk to from the Hotel Tim K(swear to gog - Hotel Tim -
on Rue Monge). Deutsches Museum - both the jet engine technology
sections and the auto sections - art in functional application.
Prague
- the Alfonso Mucha Museum - and the art nouveau found everywhere
- on the paper currency, many buildings and in every shop. Glass
works EVERYWHERE. Their cobalt blue glass is addictive to look at
and always heavier than they appear to be. And in St. Petersburg,
Florida of all places - the Dali Museum. Dali was the ultimate
self promoter - a super draftsman - on LSD!

So which museums have you visited?

charlie b

Tom Watson wrote:

snip

Don't even argue with him.

Arguments are two oneway speaches, with both parties
beginning with and ending with closed minds.

Now a discussion on the other hand is an exchange of
ideas - far more interesting, and often informative.

My original topic for discussion was how spin is entering
the woodworking lexicon - epitomized by "the presence
of abscence". I'd gotten use to "negative space" and
understood it to mean holes, symetric or irregular, in
something that I guess you'd call "positive space". In
the original context - a broken turned burl bowl - with
some pieces probably missing - I didn't try to mentally
reconsctruct was was shown in the photo - and the
rest set at angles to each other just to make "recon-
structing" the "deconstructed" piece.

I suspect that the new woodworking spin terms and
phrases have more to do with increasing the price
tag of the item than to communicate the artist's
concept or inspiration for the item/piece.

Now I must admit that I live in The Heart of Silly Cone
Valley where we have two infamous pieces of "art".
The first, a dark gray concrete spiral in a park in the
center of what used to be called "downtown" and now
called The Central Business District which The local
paper called The Gray Dog Turd" - on editorial page.
The other piece is a two times lifesize - anotomically
correct - initially polished bronze statue - of Anita Ekberg
- in THE NUDE!. Since its installation a patina has developed,
toning down the initially shiny gold finish - EXCEPT, for
some mysterious reason - the nipples. Even our civic
architecture is embarassing - the Children's Discovery
Museum - painted PURPLE and The Tech Museum, known
locally as The Tech - in day glo orange! Guess they figured
if the architectural work wasn't going to be noteworthy
they could at least make it stand out from its surroundings.

I can't define the word "art" but I know what it DOESN'T
look like, sound like or feel like.

charlie b

charlie b wrote:

So which museums have you visited?

charlie b

Detroit Institute of Art (there are pieces of Babylon on display that
were left sooty from the night that city fell and also part of the
Ishtar gate ---- the rest of fit is in, IIRC, Munich, De)

Van Andel Museum in Grand Rapids, MI to see a traveling exhibit of the
Dead Sea scrolls. Apparently to reduce the risk of terrorist incident,
they also displayed a beautifully illustrated copy of the Koran in the
same room. Grand Rapids was / is a 'furniture town' ... so they also had
a largish display of a turn of the century furniture factory.

Oh, and I wandered around Berea, KY one rainy afternoon. One whole
section of that town qualifies as a museum. As does historic Plymouth, MI.

Wandered through a restored farmhouse w slave quarters in North Carolina
a few years back. The 'big house' WAS bigger ... but size was pretty
much its only advantage that I can recall. Life wasn't easy for anyone
living on that farm. Hard on all, though probably harder on others.

Bill


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0662-2, 12/26/2006
Tested on: 12/27/2006 3:19:21 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"charlie b" wrote in message

Now a discussion on the other hand is an exchange of
ideas - far more interesting, and often informative.

My original topic for discussion was how spin is entering
the woodworking lexicon -

If it was "discussion" you were trying to encourage instead of "argument",
then why go throw up "red flags amongst bulls" with your remark about news
organizations?

It was unnecessary, out of place in what would otherwise have been an
intelligent post, and not conducive to any attempt to encourage
"discussion".

Now you done gone and got some good folks, who get along on most things but
politics, ****ed off at each other.

You're a good man, Charlie Brown ... but if the intent to foment an
"argument" was as calculated as it appears, IMHO, you should be ashamed of
yourself.

FWIW, IMO, etc.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/25/06

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
Note: 206 should be 2006

And yet if Bush misspeaks? I bet if he wrote a letter it would be
grammatically correct as well as properly dated......if not he'd fire his
secretaryg.....Rod

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 01:18:49 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

When I hear FOX news misuse words, abuse words
and use terms and phrases that make you go "HUH!??"
it comes as no surprise.

Well, the post was funny up to here. Can you give any real examples
where Fox is saying things that don't make sense;

FOX
Fair and Balanced

Whole new meaning for the word "fair".
Whole new meaning for the word "balanced".

If you have to keep reminding people that you're
"fair" and "balanced" there's a good chance that
you have to keep saying that to get people to
believe things you're saying that dont' seem to
be either fair, or balanced.

Ever hear of a advertising slogan or motto? When my laundry detergent of
choice keeps repeating springtime fresh do I take exception that it is
winter no matter how many times I wash my shop rags?

If you've watched Hannity & Combs - even once
you recognize the "are you still beating your wife?"
style of "discussions".

Commentators are not to be confused with NEWS......I refuse to hear anything
about murders in Aruba ever again..... However when the commentators are not
pontificating the channel does squeeze in a bit about daily news, events
etc......and I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that FOX plays loose with
the facts.......they can't hold a candle to Rather and his fall from grace.

If you've watched the O'Riely (sp?) Factor or
even read the liner on his latest book - I think
its title is Freedom Warrior, you have to get
out the dictionary and check that the definition
of the words haven't, in fact, changed since
last you looked. Hadn't had to do that since Lyndon
Johnson declared War On Poverty and Nixon
declared War On Drugs.

A book title?.....I'd suggest not reading the thing if the title really
bothers you....however before critiquing the book itself to be "fair and
balanced" one probably should read it first.....Rod

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
Foxed News cannot spell, they cannot think, they cannot report, they
cannot analyze - they have the stupidest group of media people on the
planet under one roof.

They are an embarrassment to the profession of journalism.

Bill O'Reilly is a complete idiot and would never bbe accepted on the
staff of a true news organization.

With the number one rated cable news show!!!!!...And in spite of your
vindictive you don't present one single salient fact.... a simple "I don't
care for the channel or Bill O'Reilly" would be a non issue...why the
factless blather? Standing on a soap box, demanding attention and yet
having nothing of value to say....odd.........Rod

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 23:49:42 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

... snip
I'm concerned that it's now spilled over into woodworking.

The presence of abscence? That puts my teeth on edge!


Now, that, we can both agree upon. Have you taken any trips to any art
museums? *That* is an experience that borders on the illogical.


.... snip of visits to *real* art and *real* museums

So which museums have you visited?


I was more referring to "modern" art galleries. Have been to the Fort
Worth Museum of Art (Kimball museum I think is it's formal name) when
they had the impressionist series there. That was very good -- the modern
art in other parts of the museum not so much so. Have also been through
several exhibits in Denver. Fort Worth Museum of art is a treat as it is
naturally lighted.

The old impressionists, the masters -- I agree that those are both art
and stunning. The modern stuff falls under the same thing as your
impressions regarding the new woodworking lexicon.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The simple fact that anyone calls what Mr. O'Reilly does "news" says a lot
about the claimant.

He is not now nor has he ever been a journalist.

Contrary to what he and his friend Sean Hannity claim, their shows are not
"news" they are in fact, talk shows disguised to make the listeners/viewers
think that they're getting actual news. When confronted with his own
contradictiory statements, Mr. O'Reilly's typical response is "I'll get back
to you on that". Given that he lied about recieving an award for journalism
as well as about his own background, the fact that he is caught lying on a
regular basis on his faux "news" show is no surprise.

What's sad is that millions of otherwise intelligent people get caught up in
thinking that what television and radio personalities say is both truthful
as well as news in the traditional sense of the word. That applies to those
who get their "news" from the Daily Show as well as from Mr. O'Reilly and
Mr. Hannity.

John E,
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...


"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
Foxed News cannot spell, they cannot think, they cannot report, they
cannot analyze - they have the stupidest group of media people on the
planet under one roof.

They are an embarrassment to the profession of journalism.

Bill O'Reilly is a complete idiot and would never bbe accepted on the
staff of a true news organization.

With the number one rated cable news show!!!!!...And in spite of your
vindictive you don't present one single salient fact.... a simple "I don't
care for the channel or Bill O'Reilly" would be a non issue...why the
factless blather? Standing on a soap box, demanding attention and yet
having nothing of value to say....odd.........Rod

John Emmons wrote:

That applies to those
who get their "news" from the Daily Show as well as from Mr.
O'Reilly and
Mr. Hannity.


It is my understanding that Jon Stewart has made it very clear that
the Daily Show is intended to be purely a spoof.

O'Reilly would be well served to do the same about his show, but that
would require a modicum of intelligence.

Lew

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
The simple fact that anyone calls what Mr. O'Reilly does "news" says a lot
about the claimant.

His web site claims
"news analysis with investigative reporting"

Isn't that pretty much what he does?

He is not now nor has he ever been a journalist.
His web site claims

"Bill O'Reilly has won a bevy of journalism awards including two Emmy's. He
began his broadcasting career in Scranton, Pennsylvania and proceeded onto
Dallas, Denver, Boston and Portland, Oregon as a local news reporter/anchor.
In 1980, he returned home to New York City for a stint at WCBS-TV before
moving to the national news scene reporting for CBS and ABC News. Mr.
O'Reilly continued his climb as the anchor of the syndicated program "Inside
Edition," before settling in at Fox News in 1996. "

common usage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist

A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and
dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and
people.

Would think he qualifies


Contrary to what he and his friend Sean Hannity claim, their shows are not
"news" they are in fact, talk shows disguised to make the
listeners/viewers
think that they're getting actual news.

No they claim to be claim to be commentators or news analysis's... is this
such a difficult concept to understand?

When confronted with his own
contradictiory statements, Mr. O'Reilly's typical response is "I'll get
back
to you on that".

Which statements were these, about what, ever signifigant?

Given that he lied about recieving an award for journalism


Wasn't that the equivalent of a typo? In a verbal interview he referred to
one award when in fact it was another......Isn't expecting in a non scripted
interview zero errors unrealistic?....I know of no one public or private
that can attain that standard. Was there a attempt to deceive to some gain
or benefit? Like him or loathe him he has attained enough success to sleep
in very comfortable bed and would need no career embellishment to further
his successes

as well as about his own background, the fact that he is caught lying on a
regular basis on his faux "news" show is no surprise.


So it should be pretty easy to share a few of these lies......Please find a
few that approx. anything close to deception.

What's sad is that millions of otherwise intelligent people get caught up
in
thinking that what television and radio personalities say is both truthful
as well as news in the traditional sense of the word. That applies to
those
who get their "news" from the Daily Show as well as from Mr. O'Reilly and
Mr. Hannity.

John E,

Sadly personality cults seems to flow both ways........those that loathe
O'Reilly seem happy to invent great faults out of petty non relevant
comments.....Why is it so hard to just claim you don't like the guy? Rod

John Emmons wrote:
The simple fact that anyone calls what Mr. O'Reilly does "news" says a lot
about the claimant.

He is not now nor has he ever been a journalist.


The proper term is commentator. I do watch the factor if only to catch
O'Reilly spinning the "news". His job, such as Sean Hannity, is to
comment on the news not report it. By commenting on the news, covering
it in their on slant they are supposed to make you think. Now Bill
never actually calls himself a news reporter unlike those people on the
big three networks. Now who is kidding who. -G

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

When confronted with his own
contradictiory statements, Mr. O'Reilly's typical response is "I'll get
back
to you on that".

Which statements were these, about what, ever signifigant?


Well, there's always the one where he claimed his pushing of a boycott on
French goods was hurting their economy and quoted, IIRC, the "Paris Business
News" to support his statement. Trouble was, there's no such paper, nor
anything vaguely resembling that name.

BTW, the claimed reduction in their economy was the normal seasonal
fluctuations :-).

I guess I can't really complain about his lies linking Iraq to 9/11 since our
wacky president and his clan were guilty of the same thing.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Back to the proliferation of Studio Woodworking
Terms and Phrases - ie woodworking ArtSpeak
- I'm in a quandry.

There's plenty of How To information about almost
any aspect of woodworking - "How I did this joint,
or this edge treatment, or this texture, or this
finish.". Finding information about The Why is
more difficult. "Why this edge treatment, joint,
texture, finish - instead of that ________?".
I've found that Krenov's books answer many of
those types of questions - more his philosophy/
approach to woodworking.

But the new Woodworking ArtSpeak is more about
What I Want The Piece To Say or What I Want People
To Feel or Think When Viewing/Interacting With My
Piece.

This seems to be more the realm of Art Critics
and Art Historians who, though not "atists", attempt
to explain What The Artist Meant and What The
Artist Was Trying (and pehaps even succeeding)
to Convey. These folks use words like "juxtaposition",
"visual elements", "linearity / curvilinear", "mass",
"balance", "contrasting" as well as "evocative",
"provocative", "disturbing" and so on.

My question is
Should the questions
What Is It?
What's It Suppose To Be?
or
What The Hell Is That?
need to be asked when one encounters a
piece made from wood? Or is ArtSpeak
from woodworkers merely a marketing
tool?

charlie b

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:40:30 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

.... snip
My question is
Should the questions
What Is It?
What's It Suppose To Be?
or
What The Hell Is That?
need to be asked when one encounters a
piece made from wood? Or is ArtSpeak
from woodworkers merely a marketing
tool?


Unless it's a piece of wood art (i.e, carving, sculpture, etc), if you
have to ask what a piece of furniture is, or is for, then I'd say the maker
has pretty well missed the mark. i.e, if it's that artsy that it needs to
be explained, Artspeak is merely marketing to people with lots of dollars.




charlie b


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:40:30 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

Back to the proliferation of Studio Woodworking
Terms and Phrases - ie woodworking ArtSpeak
- I'm in a quandry.

There's plenty of How To information about almost
any aspect of woodworking - "How I did this joint,
or this edge treatment, or this texture, or this
finish.". Finding information about The Why is
more difficult. "Why this edge treatment, joint,
texture, finish - instead of that ________?".
I've found that Krenov's books answer many of
those types of questions - more his philosophy/
approach to woodworking.

But the new Woodworking ArtSpeak is more about
What I Want The Piece To Say or What I Want People
To Feel or Think When Viewing/Interacting With My
Piece.

This seems to be more the realm of Art Critics
and Art Historians who, though not "atists", attempt
to explain What The Artist Meant and What The
Artist Was Trying (and pehaps even succeeding)
to Convey. These folks use words like "juxtaposition",
"visual elements", "linearity / curvilinear", "mass",
"balance", "contrasting" as well as "evocative",
"provocative", "disturbing" and so on.

My question is
Should the questions
What Is It?
What's It Suppose To Be?
or
What The Hell Is That?
need to be asked when one encounters a
piece made from wood? Or is ArtSpeak
from woodworkers merely a marketing
tool?

charlie b

CharlieB:

I believe that you are caught up in what the philosophers/logicians
call a "category error".

"Studio Furniture" or "Art Furniture" is propelled into reality by a
different set of questions than those that initiate the projects of
"Cabinetmakers", "Furnituremakers", and "WoodDorkers".

Those who inhabit the latter grouping ask questions like; "What is my
need?", "What is my want?", "What will fit?", "What can I afford",
"What does Aunt Betty want for Christmas?".

Those who belong in the former group are sculptors. I don't think
that they ask any questions other than; "What would look cool to me?".

This is not a slam on them. They are sculptors and that is their job
- to be useless, or only useful by accident.

To be fair to these artists, I don't think that they come up with all
the bull**** language that seems to encumber their realm.

I think that comes from commentators on their art, rather than from
the artists themselves.

Artists are useful - most commentators are not.



Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

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

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

To be fair to these artists, I don't think that they come up with all
the bull**** language that seems to encumber their realm.

I think that comes from commentators on their art, rather than from
the artists themselves.

Artists are useful - most commentators are not.

Replace "commentators", with "music critic", and you're multitasking.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/02/07

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:11:08 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


"Tom Watson" wrote in message

To be fair to these artists, I don't think that they come up with all
the bull**** language that seems to encumber their realm.

I think that comes from commentators on their art, rather than from
the artists themselves.

Artists are useful - most commentators are not.

Replace "commentators", with "music critic", and you're multitasking.


Dem bitches ain't nuttin' more than commentators in a different field.

It is the entire class of commentators that must be taken to task.

People who actually make things, be it wooddorking, music, literature,
or damn near anything that can have a maker - are completely different
than those who set themselves up to commentate, criticalize,
summarize, etc.

Some smart dude, whom I can't remember for attribution just now,
described critics as eunuchs in the harem - they see the trick done
every day but are incapable of doing it themselves - and out of their
frustration speak out against those that can.

That may be a tad harsh.


nah.....





Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

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

Tom Watson wrote:


Some smart dude, whom I can't remember for attribution just now,
described critics as eunuchs in the harem - they see the trick done
every day but are incapable of doing it themselves - and out of their
frustration speak out against those that can.

Works for me.

Those that can, do.
Those that can't, play with themselves, and/or criticize.

Lew