I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with this
statement,

"So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into the
design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop equivalent
of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."

That may be a clue.

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1

Lee Michaels wrote:
I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with
this statement,

"So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought
into the design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the
shop equivalent of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and
Everything."

That may be a clue.

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1

Just click the order button and see what comes up.

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

On Apr 1, 3:42 pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with this
statement,

"So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into the
design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop equivalent
of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."

That may be a clue.

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1

LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
"Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.

I always look forward to what Robin and his mirthmakers dreamt up on
April 1.

Good catch on the Douglas Adams reference. I missed it the first time around
myself.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 1, 3:42 pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with
this
statement,

"So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into
the
design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop
equivalent
of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."

That may be a clue.

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1

LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
"Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.

I always look forward to what Robin and his mirthmakers dreamt up on
April 1.

On 1 Apr 2007 13:26:45 -0700, "Robatoy" wrote:


LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
"Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.


Yup... 42!

On 1 Apr 2007 13:26:45 -0700, "Robatoy" wrote:


LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
"Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.

But that would be highly improbable.

B A R R Y wrote:
On 1 Apr 2007 13:26:45 -0700, "Robatoy" wrote:


LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
"Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.

But that would be highly improbable.



At the edge of the universe all things are equally improbable.

--
http://nmwoodworks.com/cube


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000730-1, 04/02/2007
Tested on: 4/3/2007 3:09:02 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 03:09:01 -0400, Bill in Detroit
wrote:

At the edge of the universe all things are equally improbable.

Kolmogorov's zero-one law (yes, look it up) says that they're not. As
most "things" (including breakfast at Milliways) would thus qualify as
"tail events" for Kolmogorov, they're instead either almost certain, or
almost impossible (i.e. their probability is either zero or one, but not
intermediate).

Sadly it's often possible to apply this law, but rarely to tell just
which probability they have.

On Apr 1, 3:42 pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with this
statement,

"So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into the
design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop equivalent
of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."

That may be a clue.

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1

This made me chortle:
"Once you've lapped your chisels and blades to a common thickness (a
trivial one-time exercise),"
Sure, it's a straightforward task that you only have to do once...for
about a month straight!

R

Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
-- should me the MK.XLII

It has a probability ranking of 0.75, and is about as attractive as
the fjords of Norway.

On Apr 4, 8:41 am, "RicodJour" wrote:
On Apr 1, 3:42 pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:

I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with this
statement,

"So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into the
design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop equivalent
of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."

That may be a clue.

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1

This made me chortle:
"Once you've lapped your chisels and blades to a common thickness (a
trivial one-time exercise),"
Sure, it's a straightforward task that you only have to do once...for
about a month straight!

R

"LarryLev" wrote:

Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
-- should me the MK.XLII

They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
:P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman numerals,
:but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!

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

alexy wrote:
: "LarryLev" wrote:

:Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
:-- should me the MK.XLII
:
: They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
: :P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman numerals,
: :but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!



Actually ... both notations are as correct as the other. The substractive
notation (IX instead of VIIII, for example) got accepted very late
in the game. And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the
20th century.


-- Andy Barss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
alexy wrote:
: "LarryLev" wrote:

:Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
:-- should me the MK.XLII
:
: They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
: :P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman
numerals,
: :but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!



Actually ... both notations are as correct as the other. The substractive
notation (IX instead of VIIII, for example) got accepted very late
in the game. And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the
20th century.


-- Andy Barss

When you consider that there were many times being chiseled in granite an
"XI" is a helluva lot easier to chisel than a "VIIII"

Just some food for thought -

"Vic Baron" wrote:


"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
alexy wrote:
: "LarryLev" wrote:

:Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
:-- should me the MK.XLII
:
: They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
: :P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman
numerals,
: :but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!



Actually ... both notations are as correct as the other. The substractive
notation (IX instead of VIIII, for example) got accepted very late
in the game. And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the
20th century.


-- Andy Barss

When you consider that there were many times being chiseled in granite an
"XI" is a helluva lot easier to chisel than a "VIIII"

Just some food for thought -

Or even IX if you didn't want to wait a couple of years! g

But the notion that Roman numeral use is not carved in stone (if
you'll pardon the pun) but still evolving into the XXth century is
strange.


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

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 21:17:17 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the 20th century.

Non-subtractive is still standard for clockfaces (for IIII) even in the
21st century. I believe this is owing to Henry VIII, and the clock at
Hampton Court

Recalling my 4th grade math class, when using Roman numerals, the rule is no
more that 3 of a given character, thus 4 is IV and not IIII. As far as I
personally know, the rule never changed. Just because someone in the 20th
century used it, doesn't mean it's correct. So 42 can accurately only be
written as XLII since XXXXII exceeds the 3 character rule.


"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
alexy wrote:
: "LarryLev" wrote:

:Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
:-- should me the MK.XLII
:
: They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
: :P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman
numerals,
: :but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!



Actually ... both notations are as correct as the other. The substractive
notation (IX instead of VIIII, for example) got accepted very late
in the game. And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the
20th century.


-- Andy Barss