"busbus" wrote in message
...
I am thinking about purchasing a paint sprayer but not necessarily to
spray lacquer on furniture. I am looking to use it to do things like
sealing my deck or painting my shutters or even painting the inside of
my house. I have often thought about this whenever I seal my deck but
after this year, I am sick of squatting and using a brush to seal all
of those dam* stiles. Recently, I was over a friend's house who was
getting the entire inside of his house painted and the guys he hired
used an airless gun and they were done so fast that it made your head
spin.

Now I am not stupid and know that I will probably NEVER get good
enough not to tape like those guys did (I still don't know how the
heck they did that) but, WOW!! Painting is the one chore that I hate
over and above any other, especially the cleaning up afterward. The
sprayer those guys had hooked up to an outside hose and they
circulated the water using a five-gallon bucket and the entire thing
was cleaned in less than ten minutes. Incredible.

There is no way that I need the size of machine those guys had but
then I won't be painting every day with the thing: I only need to use
it several times a year.

The wife is constantly complaining that she wants rooms painted and I
always push it off until divorce is almost imminent. Then I do it
with a chip on my shoulder and life ain't so fun for a while. But
that thing make painting seem almost fun...almost. I know there will
be a learning curve and I will need to practice on things like the
garage or storage room before I ever attempt to use it in the living
room but I am willing to try!

Any suggestions? People are telling me to look at Graco.

I've got an SprayTech airless myself. Sorry. Don't recall the model, but I
bought it as a factory rebuilt for a couple hundred bucks. Its actually the
second one I've used, but the first one I have owned. A friend let me
borrow one he has first. His is a small Wagner and it seems to put the
paint on a little heavy. I know to do the same type jobs it used about a
third more paint for two quick coats than mine, but its less expensive and
it works pretty well.

The one I have fits into a five gallon bucket. You pour the paint into a
top mounted tub on the Wagner.

Mine is a SprayTech. I think it is a little faster and to do a good job it
uses less paint. I think it only cost about $100 more than the Wagner.

Both leave a good finish and are relatively easy to use, but for small jobs
the setup and clean up time might offset the time save in painting. You do
have to clean it thoroughly, and you should pump it full of separating oil
when you are done cleaning.

As far as taping... they make these great dispenser for that. A roll of
masking tape on the end with a roll of paper in the middle. For floors an
electrician I know showed me to use roofing felt or rolled moisture barrier
and tape it down. He did that when he built his house to save work on floor
clean up at all stages. He papered the floors before they started hanging
drywall, and didn't take it up until they were ready to lay the flooring.
Its cheap and you can cover the entire floor quickly. When done, just wad
or roll it towards the middle and throw it in the dumpster.

Back when I worked in the tool store, the professional painters all came in
for Graco machines, Graco Guns, and Graco tips. Most refused to buy Wagner,
not because their higher end machines were bad, but because Wagner had
starting marketing their products to consumers. I never heard of SprayTech
back then, but I like my SprayTech sprayer.

P.S. The friend who loaned me the little Wagner owns a paint store, and his
unit has seen some use.

My opinion and information is here in last year's thread:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/26zkjwd

Robert

On Sep 14, 12:30*pm, "
wrote:
My opinion and information is here in last year's thread:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/26zkjwd

Robert


Thanks, Robert!

I was thinking Graco and not just because that is what I saw in use.
It seems to be the standard out there. Now I need to see if I want to
spend the money on the X5 or the X7...

busbus

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

My opinion and information is here in last year's thread:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/26zkjwd

Damn, can't anyone do a straight link any more?

"WE DOAN NEED NO STEENGKIN' PREVIEWS!" he gently urged.
/rant

--
Not merely an absence of noise, Real Silence begins
when a reasonable being withdraws from the noise in
order to find peace and order in his inner sanctuary.
-- Peter Minard

On Sep 16, 12:47*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Damn, can't anyone do a straight link any more?

"WE DOAN NEED NO STEENGKIN' PREVIEWS!" he gently urged.
/rant

Damn, Larry. If I gave you a gold brick, you would complain it was
too heavy.

I leave the preview feature on because it was pointed out to me on two
other venues I participate in that it was dicey to some to click on a
link that sends them to the great unknown.

Less computer savvy folks run their computers without the proper
prophylactics that they didn't know they were entering sites that
installed malware of all kinds. The folks posting the links didn't
know they were linking to infected sites.

If you have ever had to reformat your drive(s) because you had a
particularly nasty bid of invasive software on your machine, you tend
to be verrrry careful.

With tinyurl and their ilk being blamed for a lot of that because you
didn't know where you were going because the compressed url didn't
give a clue, they decided to add the preview as a feature.

Truthfully, you are the only one that has complained.

I am no longer sending you a gold brick.

Really, it was ready to go.... ;^)

Robert

wrote:
On Sep 16, 12:47 am, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Damn, can't anyone do a straight link any more?

"WE DOAN NEED NO STEENGKIN' PREVIEWS!" he gently urged.
/rant


Damn, Larry. If I gave you a gold brick, you would complain it was
too heavy.

I leave the preview feature on because it was pointed out to me on two
other venues I participate in that it was dicey to some to click on a
link that sends them to the great unknown.


Why didn't you just post the direct link without using "TinyURL.com"? I
hate "TinyURL" for the exact reasons you've stated.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On Sep 16, 1:05*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:59:24 -0400, Nova wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 16, 12:47 am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Damn, can't anyone do a straight link any more?

"WE DOAN NEED NO STEENGKIN' PREVIEWS!" he gently urged.
/rant

Damn, Larry. *If I gave you a gold brick, you would complain it was
too heavy.

I leave the preview feature on because it was pointed out to me on two
other venues I participate in that it was dicey to some to click on a
link that sends them to the great unknown.

Why didn't you just post the direct link without using "TinyURL.com"? *I
hate "TinyURL" for the exact reasons you've stated.

For those who don't know, there is a simple way to post even extremely
long URLs in a usenet post or in an email to keep them from being
broken by line-breaks

just put a at the begininning and a at the end. No spaces, either.

example:

http://www.exampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexam pleexampleex...

NICE!

On 9/16/2010 11:59 AM, Nova wrote:
wrote:

I leave the preview feature on because it was pointed out to me on two
other venues I participate in that it was dicey to some to click on a
link that sends them to the great unknown.


Why didn't you just post the direct link without using "TinyURL.com"? I
hate "TinyURL" for the exact reasons you've stated.

Last time I looked that is what the "preview feature", which he
thoughtfully included, is specifically designed to preclude.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Why+would+any+one+want+to+use+a+preview+f eature+-inurl%3A%28kelkoo|bizrate|pixmania|dealtime|pricer unner|dooyoo|pricegrabber|pricewatch|resellerratin gs|ebay|shopbot|comparestoreprices|ciao|unbeatable |shopping|epinions|nextag|buy|bestwebbuys%29#num=1 0&hl=en&safe=off&&sa=X&ei=fVKSTKCKFISBlAeMmdCpCg&v ed=0CBEQBSgA&q=Why+would+anyone+want+to+use+a+prev iew+feature+-inurl%3A%28kelkoo|bizrate|pixmania|dealtime|pricer unner|dooyoo|pricegrabber|pricewatch|resellerratin gs|ebay|shopbot|comparestoreprices|ciao|unbeatable |shopping|epinions|nextag|buy|bestwebbuys%29&spell =1&fp=7b3e9e0669ddb0a1

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:40:35 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 16, 12:47*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Damn, can't anyone do a straight link any more?

"WE DOAN NEED NO STEENGKIN' PREVIEWS!" he gently urged.
/rant

Damn, Larry. If I gave you a gold brick, you would complain it was
too heavy.

No, I'd make you carry it to my bank for me, silly.


I leave the preview feature on because it was pointed out to me on two
other venues I participate in that it was dicey to some to click on a
link that sends them to the great unknown.

Then "some" shouldn't click on links. The rest of us know you, know
better, and don't appreciate the hassle. AAMOF, several probably saw
the Preview in the link and didn't click as a result.


Less computer savvy folks run their computers without the proper
prophylactics that they didn't know they were entering sites that
installed malware of all kinds. The folks posting the links didn't
know they were linking to infected sites.

If you have ever had to reformat your drive(s) because you had a
particularly nasty bid of invasive software on your machine, you tend
to be verrrry careful.

With tinyurl and their ilk being blamed for a lot of that because you
didn't know where you were going because the compressed url didn't
give a clue, they decided to add the preview as a feature.

And I'm saying that I don't like it and that, probably, the majority
of us find it a real bother. Do as you like, though.


Truthfully, you are the only one that has complained.

No, there are at least two of us, and that means there are 200 waiting
in the wings to complain.


I am no longer sending you a gold brick.

Really, it was ready to go.... ;^)

I believe you, you goldbricker. I'll be very cautious of flaming
paper sacks left on my doorstep at night, too.


--
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country
against his government." --Edward Abbey

On Sep 16, 1:52*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country
against his government." * * * * * * * --Edward Abbey

They did in '08

wrote:

I kinda feel like this; all of us here are big boys. I hope that
no
one runs in and tells their spouse that the mean man in Texas is
annoying them again by posting useful links to honest information that
require TWO ****ing clicks, not just ONE ****ing click. What an SOB.
-----------------------
If people don't like tiny urls, they can take a flying **** at a
rolling donut.

Lew

Robert,

If it makes you feel any better, I really appreciated the link. There
was a lot of useful information in that thread and I am glad you gave
it--in ANY form.

I think I remember that from last year but I only paid half attention
to it because I wasn't even thinking airless sprayer last year. But
every year that these knees and back get older, the more I think of
things like that.

Thanks for the information. Good luck with the onslaught but I think
you have handled it here before!


busbus

wrote

I kinda feel like this; all of us here are big boys. I hope that no
one runs in and tells their spouse that the mean man in Texas is
annoying them again by posting useful links to honest information that
require TWO ****ing clicks, not just ONE ****ing click. What an SOB.
And hiding that under the guise of trying to be thoughtful. Yeah,
right.

I did notice that the vocal critics added not one line of help,
information, instruction or a link of their own in reference to the
OP's honest question, but were on the ready with their personal
criticism of how information was posted.

I know of what you speak.

It has been my observation that the most ardent internet critics are those
who object to INFORMATION of any kind. My theory is that they don't have any
legitimate information or contribution to make. So they bitch like crazy any
time anybody elses publishes something useful.

You, Robert, are one of the good guys. Your posts are often saved because
they contain wisdom not found elsewhere. I, for one, do appreciate your
opinions and discussions. Don't pay too much attention to net nannies. Just
continue to be yourself.

And you are not a mean man from Texas. You are an opinionated curmudgeon!
LOL :-)

On Sep 17, 8:40*am, "Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast
dot net wrote:
wrote

I kinda feel like this; *all of us here are big boys. *I hope that no
one runs in and tells their spouse that the mean man in Texas is
annoying them again by posting useful links to honest information that
require TWO ****ing clicks, not just ONE ****ing click. *What an SOB.
And hiding that under the guise of trying to be thoughtful. *Yeah,
right.

I did notice that the vocal critics added not one line of help,
information, instruction or a link of their own in reference to the
OP's honest question, but were on the ready with their personal
criticism of how information was posted.

I know of what you speak.

It has been my observation that the most ardent internet critics are those
who object to INFORMATION of any kind. My theory is that they don't have any
legitimate information or contribution to make. So they bitch like crazy any
time anybody elses publishes something useful.

You, Robert, are one of the good guys. Your posts are often saved because
they contain wisdom not found elsewhere. I, for one, do appreciate your
opinions and discussions. *Don't pay too much attention to net nannies. Just
continue to be yourself.

And you are not a mean man from Texas. You are an opinionated curmudgeon!
LOL *:-)

I agree with this sentiment completely (except that last bit about
that curmudgeon *smirk*)
Robert is one of the few I would would share some of my stash with....
(with whom I would share some of my stash?)
There's a few attendees in here who freely share their professional
experiences and I am always impressed by that. That kind of sharing
totally transcends some of their political misconceptions. *smirk
again* Because when it comes to religious and political viewpoints,
mine are always right and I know that. I'm just trying to help out
those who have strayed. *triple smirk*

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:40:22 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote:

wrote

I kinda feel like this; all of us here are big boys. I hope that no
one runs in and tells their spouse that the mean man in Texas is
annoying them again by posting useful links to honest information that
require TWO ****ing clicks, not just ONE ****ing click. What an SOB.
And hiding that under the guise of trying to be thoughtful. Yeah,
right.

I mentioned it because it marred an otherwise selfless gift and
thought you'd like to know the options.


I did notice that the vocal critics added not one line of help,
information, instruction or a link of their own in reference to the
OP's honest question, but were on the ready with their personal
criticism of how information was posted.

I know of what you speak.

It has been my observation that the most ardent internet critics are those
who object to INFORMATION of any kind. My theory is that they don't have any
legitimate information or contribution to make. So they bitch like crazy any
time anybody elses publishes something useful.

Since I was the one critiquing Robert's post, I hope you don't think
I'm that type.


You, Robert, are one of the good guys. Your posts are often saved because
they contain wisdom not found elsewhere. I, for one, do appreciate your
opinions and discussions.

I feel the same way. (Thanks, Robert, um, I mean Naily.)


Don't pay too much attention to net nannies. Just
continue to be yourself.

Right. Just watch the unnecessary hoops and clauses in your gifts.


And you are not a mean man from Texas. You are an opinionated curmudgeon!
LOL :-)

Et tu, Brutus.

--
Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for
anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one
tumble down the stairs.

Megan Kinzler wrote:
: On Sep 14, 12:30*pm, "
: wrote:
: My opinion and information is here in last year's thread:
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/26zkjwd
:
: Robert


: Thanks, Robert!

: I was thinking Graco and not just because that is what I saw in use.
: It seems to be the standard out there. Now I need to see if I want to
: spend the money on the X5 or the X7...

I have the X5, and have painted both the inside and the outside of a house with it.
Great machine.

-- Andy Barss

On Sep 17, 10:26*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Well, I was going to leave this alone, but I can't. I look at this
group and the incredible amount of political vomit that is spewed
across the screens of those looking to learn or share something about
woodwork.

I glance through the posts that the regulars here upload that are
disrespectful, intolerant, and in some cases profane when they get out
of hand.

Yet, you decide to pick at a post that wasn't aimed at you, on a
thread you decided to read that actually contained content related to
this group's charter.

While you complain about my posting style wasting your time, think of
the time you have wasted simply quoting, critiquing, commenting to
that post. You haven't posted anything to contribute an answer to the
OP's question, but have posted 4 different responses to tell me how
you would like for me to post my replies.

I know you are a construction guy as well, so I will put it in our
vernacular: "Who died and made you boss?"

I was concerned about the loss of time you and Jack felt like you had
expended when having to double click (OK... maybe not... ) so I
decided to see just how long it took to click twice to see where I
sent people via a compressed link with preview.

In five tries, it took me an average of 2.3 seconds according to my
chronometer. Personally, I thought it took a bit longer than that,
but time trials really brought home how ludicrous this bitching has
become. I am not an important guy, but I do have 2.3 seconds (knowing
at any time it could stretch to 3!) to click on something that was
directly related to my question.

Following your logic of the irritation at "the extra step", I figure
this: You posted your dissenting opinion and critique four different
times; at an average of 8 minutes a post, that yielded 1920 seconds
to complain. That means that you could click on 768 compressed urls
with previews in the time it took you to complain! Crap... talk about
wasting time!

I can assure you that you will waste more of your own time than I ever
will around here. After all, I don't make you read, click on, or
participate in any part of any thread.

In that light, I also recall the fact it would take me many more
seconds, perhaps many minutes to find exactly what I was looking for
to answer my questions if I was an average Joe unsure of the location
of a valid answer. Since this is a public forum populated by many
professionals and talented craftsmen, I keep in mind that the general
public has unique access to talents and experiences if both sides
decide to participate.

When I am at work, I do not socialize. I do not teach. I don't have
the time and frankly don't give a crap about someone that wanders up
to ask me a question on procedure or materials.

However,over the years folks in this venue have warmly received my
efforts, regardless of posting style, and some have been very kind in
their responses, and we have even been in touch offline, and even
talked in person. I don't mind helping anyone that will try; and they
don't mind how I get the information to them.

I don't bull**** about what I know, and realize that many here know a
great deal more than I do about certain aspects of the group charter.
I don't care how they post, their grammar usage, their poor spelling,
or typos as long as I get the info.

That's why we are here, right? To share information about
woodworking?

So in consideration, an additional FIVE (spotted you more than double
my experience) seconds wouldn't be much of a hassle for me to have
access to actual professionals.

Robert, you and I have always given away information freely here on
the Wreck for years and years. Why are you suddenly putting obstacles
in the way of their receipt? *Granted, it's a very minor irritation,
but why -knowingly- insert it?

In summary, so many people were having problems with their browsers
reading extra long urls, that the compressed url was born.

Round two: tinyurl with previews was born because so many folks were
convinced that they were going into the great unknown regions of the
internet with no say so if they clicked a link they didn't recognize.
So much so that tinyurl responded by taking the time, spending them
money, and modifying their software to accommodate those that got
screwed before, or were uneasy about clicking on a blind link.

In fact, there was a thread (a year ago?) where there was a lot of
chest pounding and sanctimonious prattle espoused ABOUT the dangers of
clicking on a compressed url.

So take your pick which side of the fence you are on. While not
trying to be too offensive, you can rest assured I won't change
anything I do just to please you. I don't mean that in an aggressive
political thread way I see here, but I just won't.

And again, if my posting style doesn't suit your personal tastes, just
don't read anything I post. I don't know how it could get easier than
that. Or if there is a compressed url, don't click on it.

Next thing ya know you'll be giving away a box of free nails, asking
only that recipients take a number and when it's called, having them
go sit in that chair for ten minutes. After that, they receive their
free nail. * Repeat until the box is gone.

Hmmmmm..... ten minutes? 2.3 seconds is hardly that.

Besides, you need to remember what the membership to this forum
costs. Think about what you pay for an exact answer to a specific
question. And remember that you don't even have to participate here
to get your questions answered.

Seems to me that qualified answers under those parameters is quite a
bargain, regardless of the delivery system.

There's free and there's free, Naily. *You decide how you're received.

OK, one more time so that I am not being obtuse. Don't waste any of
your time clicking on my posts, and you won't be harmed or impugned in
any way, nor will you be out the extra seconds you would be losing to
click on one of the compressed urls I post about once a month.
(lesseee..... 2.3 seconds, X 12 months... almost 30 seconds a year).
As for the "There's free and there's free" crack about advice one can
receive in just over two seconds, please remember EXACTLY what the
people in this group pay for it.

As far as how I am received, that made me chuckle. I was never the
popular guy in school, BMOC, nor did I ever win a popularity contest.
I was me, and that was all.

So how much concern do you really think I have here about folks that
for the most part I will never meet, never talk to off group, and will
never even hear from again when I post an answer?

While I would prefer that people don't think of me as a total ass, for
the most part I simply don't care "how I am received" here, or
anywhere else. If you are thinking any sense of importance I might
have to this group, you misread me. I am not egotistical enough to
think that my words will go any farther than Google will archive
them. When they quit archiving and hosting these old newsgroups, all
the information, all the posts, and all the insights, tips, tricks,
and all the other parts and pieces will be scattered like leaves in
the wind. No one will remember either of us.

Robert

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:56:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 17, 10:26*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Well, I was going to leave this alone, but I can't. I look at this
group and the incredible amount of political vomit that is spewed
across the screens of those looking to learn or share something about
woodwork.

I glance through the posts that the regulars here upload that are
disrespectful, intolerant, and in some cases profane when they get out
of hand.

Yet, you decide to pick at a post that wasn't aimed at you, on a
thread you decided to read that actually contained content related to
this group's charter.

Shame on you. You know that's simply not DONE here.
(that was a joke)


While you complain about my posting style wasting your time, think of
the time you have wasted simply quoting, critiquing, commenting to
that post. You haven't posted anything to contribute an answer to the
OP's question, but have posted 4 different responses to tell me how
you would like for me to post my replies.

I know you are a construction guy as well, so I will put it in our
vernacular: "Who died and made you boss?"

Nobody. I simply gave you my opinion + 3 clarifications. They're for
you to react to or ignore as you see fit, mon.

I believe I -joked- about it taking an extra second. Do you think
that, just perhaps, you might be overreacting to that?

I also explained that you were the second person to do that and I'm
not the ony person it irritated. I pointed out that it was an irritant
and wanted to mention it so folks here know there are people who
aren't fond of it.


I was concerned about the loss of time you and Jack felt like you had
expended when having to double click (OK... maybe not... ) so I
decided to see just how long it took to click twice to see where I
sent people via a compressed link with preview.

In five tries, it took me an average of 2.3 seconds according to my
chronometer. Personally, I thought it took a bit longer than that,
but time trials really brought home how ludicrous this bitching has
become. I am not an important guy, but I do have 2.3 seconds (knowing
at any time it could stretch to 3!) to click on something that was
directly related to my question.

Following your logic of the irritation at "the extra step", I figure
this: You posted your dissenting opinion and critique four different
times; at an average of 8 minutes a post, that yielded 1920 seconds
to complain. That means that you could click on 768 compressed urls
with previews in the time it took you to complain! Crap... talk about
wasting time!

Humor is lost on you. Noted. ****, Robert, I go out of my way to
look things up for people, to give a source for items I've found
valuable in working wood, perhaps up to half an hour's worth. Forget
the time thing. That was humor regarding a nit I was picking with your
choice of compression formats.


So take your pick which side of the fence you are on. While not
trying to be too offensive, you can rest assured I won't change
anything I do just to please you. I don't mean that in an aggressive
political thread way I see here, but I just won't.

And again, if my posting style doesn't suit your personal tastes, just
don't read anything I post. I don't know how it could get easier than
that. Or if there is a compressed url, don't click on it.

OK.


Next thing ya know you'll be giving away a box of free nails, asking
only that recipients take a number and when it's called, having them
go sit in that chair for ten minutes. After that, they receive their
free nail. * Repeat until the box is gone.

Hmmmmm..... ten minutes? 2.3 seconds is hardly that.

You really do have an obsession about time today, don't you?
Metaphors be with you.

Ciao!


--
We're all here because we're not all there.