"It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."

How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.

I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
whenever he gets a ****ty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

The workman used to make a lot of his own tools. Now does it ring better?

"Mike Girouard" wrote in message
om...
"It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."

How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.

I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
whenever he gets a ****ty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

"Mike Girouard" wrote in message
om...
"It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."

How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
tools.

Well, not necessarily sub-standard tools. There is and always has been a
point beyond which talent and skill could not prevail over pure junk. It's
really more of a case where acceptable tools get tagged as sub-standard
because of a lack of skill, talent, or patience.

Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.


Yup, but it's as applicable today as it was back then. A lot of what we
demand in a tool today, especially as we get more into our hobbies,
sidelines, or whatever, really does not have that much to do with turning
out a good product. Not to harp on a point, but the laser is a good
example. It's rapidly gaining acceptance and soon will achieve the level of
must-have. It really offers nothing to the woodworker in terms of quality
product, but even now you're beginning to hear that it contributes to
quality work. At some point a bad cut will be blamed on a miter saw that
didn't have a laser. Shame.

I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
whenever he gets a ****ty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.


Despite everything else that could be said about it, this is absolutely
true.
--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:5EHqd.3287
Not to harp on a point, but the laser is a good
example. It's rapidly gaining acceptance and soon will achieve the level
of
must-have. It really offers nothing to the woodworker in terms of quality
product, but even now you're beginning to hear that it contributes to
quality work. At some point a bad cut will be blamed on a miter saw that
didn't have a laser. Shame.

Don't fall for the hype.

-j

The workman chooses his tools, or makes his tools, or at least chooses the
employer who furnishes his tools. Thus in the end, the workman is
responsible for his tools.

--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com


"Mike Girouard" wrote in message
om...
"It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."

How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.

I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
whenever he gets a ****ty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

Just this morning I let loose a steady stream of vulgarity while trying to
do a simple thing like making a notch in a push stick with a hand saw. I
finally gave up and nibbled it away on the table saw.

I almost always get lousy results when trying to use hand saws. But I get
great results when I take the time to make sure my power tools are precisely
adjusted and aligned. Takes most of the "human factor" right out of the
job. Now I find I can use my creativity on the design of the piece rather
than on the mundane task of hand tool technique.

But hell yes I blame the tools. It couldn't possibly be me, could it?

"Mike Girouard" wrote in message
om...
"It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."

How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.

I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
whenever he gets a ****ty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

"Chuck Hoffman" wrote in message
. com...
Just this morning I let loose a steady stream of vulgarity while trying to
do a simple thing like making a notch in a push stick with a hand saw. I
finally gave up and nibbled it away on the table saw.


You should have run out and bought a bandsaw for that!

ROTFLMAO!

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:_UMqd.1143$zK1.931@trndny05...

"Chuck Hoffman" wrote in message
. com...
Just this morning I let loose a steady stream of vulgarity while trying
to
do a simple thing like making a notch in a push stick with a hand saw.
I
finally gave up and nibbled it away on the table saw.


You should have run out and bought a bandsaw for that!

That's cause there's too many people believing that the latest and greatest
power tool will make them better at what they do. If you buy a ****ty power
tool and it breaks or does a poor job, that reflects on your skills. Why
couldn't you put the power tool down and do it right. Power tools only make
the job go faster not better.

If you don't believe that then you've obviously never seen a Chippendale or
Queen Anne...
"Mike Girouard" wrote in message
om...
"It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."

How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.

I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
whenever he gets a ****ty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

"Chuck Hoffman" wrote in
. com:

Just this morning I let loose a steady stream of vulgarity while
trying to do a simple thing like making a notch in a push stick with a
hand saw. I finally gave up and nibbled it away on the table saw.

I had the same problem last week. Then I got the right handsaw from the
rack, and the task went beautifully.

'Giving up', and 'using a tool with which you could accomplish the task',
are not the same thing. I have some tools which I have not mastered as
yet. Ok, make that many tools. But I haven't given up as of yet.

Patriarch

"johnny rotten" wrote in message news:2ySqd.384668$%k.279133@pd7tw2no...
That's cause there's too many people believing that the latest and greatest
power tool will make them better at what they do. If you buy a ****ty power
tool and it breaks or does a poor job, that reflects on your skills. Why
couldn't you put the power tool down and do it right. Power tools only make
the job go faster not better.

If you don't believe that then you've obviously never seen a Chippendale or
Queen Anne...

I have (my grandmother owned a set Hepplewhite chairs) and I still
disagree. Power tools can do a job better by providing consistency,
for one thing. Also by providing the average wrecker with confidence.
(This NG would be pretty damned small if there were no power tools.)
I'd like to see what Norm could come up with using nothing but manual
tools. I doubt very much it would be as impressive as what he does on
his show.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

"Mike Girouard" wrote in message
om...

I'd like to see what Norm could come up with using nothing but manual
tools. I doubt very much it would be as impressive as what he does on
his show.


The Woodright Shop on Line 1...

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:20:14 GMT, "johnny rotten"
wrote:

Power tools only make
the job go faster not better.

I'll agree that a power tool can ruin a good board faster, but
disagree that a power tool can't sometimes do a better job with less
operator skill.

Examples:

A jointer can put a straight edge and a flat face on a board with much
less skill than hand planes.

A table saw can accurately cut with much less skill than hand saws and
plow planes.

A thickness planer is a hell of a lot easier to use than hand planes
to accurately plane a stack of lumber to the same thickness, with
parallel faces.

All tools, powered or not, require SOME basic knowledge. Power tools
will not only ruin wood faster, but they will seriously maim the
operator, if a minimum level of skill isn't present. Most hand tools
require serious forethought to actually amputate a limb. A power tool
can amputate before the user knows something is wrong.

Poor power tools and dull hand tools introduce variables that can make
them impossible to use accurately, not matter what the skill level of
the user.

Barry

Subject: "It's a poor workman who blames . . ."
From: "johnny rotten"

Power tools only make
the job go faster not better.

If you don't believe that then you've obviously never seen a
Chippendale or
Queen Anne...

This is what never fails to amaze me -
at the mill shop I go to, they will make
an elaborate custom door and jamb in about 5 days, give or take, using the
best power equipment money can buy.
How long would it have taken to make
the same door, starting with rough
boards, in the year 1830? There must
be logs somewhere giving exact detail
of tools, personnel and time frames.
It would be very interesting to see.

(BUB 209) wrote in message ...
Subject: "It's a poor workman who blames . . ."
From: "johnny rotten"

Power tools only make
the job go faster not better.

If you don't believe that then you've obviously never seen a
Chippendale or
Queen Anne...

This is what never fails to amaze me -
at the mill shop I go to, they will make
an elaborate custom door and jamb in about 5 days, give or take, using the
best power equipment money can buy. How long would it have taken to make
the same door, starting with rough boards, in the year 1830? There must
be logs somewhere giving exact detail of tools, personnel and time frames.
It would be very interesting to see.

Maybe not all that much longer than your mill shop. Labor was a LOT
cheaper 175 years ago - not to mention apprentices that got bupkis for
7 years. The shop could throw 5 or 7 men on one door - each one doing
his "specialty" - where the modern shop probably uses only 2 or 3 men
(if that)to knock out the same product. Also it IS true that practice
develops speed. You're looking at hand-producing, say, a bead molding
according to how YOU think YOU would do it. In 1830 there were guys
who did nothing but moldings and could probably do in a day what would
take you a month doing it his way.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:34 GMT, Ba r r y
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:20:14 GMT, "johnny rotten"
wrote:

Power tools only make
the job go faster not better.

I'll agree that a power tool can ruin a good board faster, but
disagree that a power tool can't sometimes do a better job with less
operator skill.

Power tools can definitely do a better job with less operator skill on
a lot of things.

It's like almost anything else. A master can outperform the power tool
on everything but time, but for the average woodworker, the power tool
can give better results in many areas.

Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now.

--RC

Examples:

A jointer can put a straight edge and a flat face on a board with much
less skill than hand planes.

A table saw can accurately cut with much less skill than hand saws and
plow planes.

A thickness planer is a hell of a lot easier to use than hand planes
to accurately plane a stack of lumber to the same thickness, with
parallel faces.

All tools, powered or not, require SOME basic knowledge. Power tools
will not only ruin wood faster, but they will seriously maim the
operator, if a minimum level of skill isn't present. Most hand tools
require serious forethought to actually amputate a limb. A power tool
can amputate before the user knows something is wrong.

Poor power tools and dull hand tools introduce variables that can make
them impossible to use accurately, not matter what the skill level of
the user.

Barry

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

On 30 Nov 2004 10:47:56 -0800, (Mike Girouard)
wrote:

(BUB 209) wrote in message ...
Subject: "It's a poor workman who blames . . ."
From: "johnny rotten"

Power tools only make
the job go faster not better.

If you don't believe that then you've obviously never seen a
Chippendale or
Queen Anne...

This is what never fails to amaze me -
at the mill shop I go to, they will make
an elaborate custom door and jamb in about 5 days, give or take, using the
best power equipment money can buy. How long would it have taken to make
the same door, starting with rough boards, in the year 1830? There must
be logs somewhere giving exact detail of tools, personnel and time frames.
It would be very interesting to see.

Maybe not all that much longer than your mill shop. Labor was a LOT
cheaper 175 years ago - not to mention apprentices that got bupkis for
7 years. The shop could throw 5 or 7 men on one door - each one doing
his "specialty" - where the modern shop probably uses only 2 or 3 men
(if that)to knock out the same product. Also it IS true that practice
develops speed. You're looking at hand-producing, say, a bead molding
according to how YOU think YOU would do it. In 1830 there were guys
who did nothing but moldings and could probably do in a day what would
take you a month doing it his way.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

Ah yes, apprentices. The 18th century equivalent of power tools.

--RC

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

I don't agree with that. It's just a different set of skills.

Someone with a poorly set up table saw can't cut wood any more accurately
than someone with poor technique using a hand saw. The skill is in setting
up the machine for accuracy...then having the skill to operate it for best
results.

wrote in message
...
(snip)
Power tools can definitely do a better job with less operator skill on
a lot of things.

It's like almost anything else. A master can outperform the power tool
on everything but time, but for the average woodworker, the power tool
can give better results in many areas.

Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now.

--RC

Examples:

A jointer can put a straight edge and a flat face on a board with much
less skill than hand planes.

A table saw can accurately cut with much less skill than hand saws and
plow planes.

A thickness planer is a hell of a lot easier to use than hand planes
to accurately plane a stack of lumber to the same thickness, with
parallel faces.

All tools, powered or not, require SOME basic knowledge. Power tools
will not only ruin wood faster, but they will seriously maim the
operator, if a minimum level of skill isn't present. Most hand tools
require serious forethought to actually amputate a limb. A power tool
can amputate before the user knows something is wrong.

Poor power tools and dull hand tools introduce variables that can make
them impossible to use accurately, not matter what the skill level of
the user.

Barry

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:02:07 GMT, "Chuck Hoffman"
wrote:

I don't agree with that. It's just a different set of skills.

Someone with a poorly set up table saw can't cut wood any more accurately
than someone with poor technique using a hand saw.

It's a lot easier to cut a reasonably straight line on a poorly set up
table saw than it is for a person with poor technique to cut an
equally straight line with a hand saw. Having done both, I know.

The same for nearly any other power tool.


The skill is in setting
up the machine for accuracy...then having the skill to operate it for best
results.

We're not talking best results here -- unless we're talking about the
master with the hand tools -- we're talking about what it takes to
produce average quality work. Producing results comparable to average
quality outpt from a power tool usually takes a lot more skill with
hand tools.

--RC

wrote in message
.. .
(snip)
Power tools can definitely do a better job with less operator skill on
a lot of things.

It's like almost anything else. A master can outperform the power tool
on everything but time, but for the average woodworker, the power tool
can give better results in many areas.

Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now.

--RC

Examples:

A jointer can put a straight edge and a flat face on a board with much
less skill than hand planes.

A table saw can accurately cut with much less skill than hand saws and
plow planes.

A thickness planer is a hell of a lot easier to use than hand planes
to accurately plane a stack of lumber to the same thickness, with
parallel faces.

All tools, powered or not, require SOME basic knowledge. Power tools
will not only ruin wood faster, but they will seriously maim the
operator, if a minimum level of skill isn't present. Most hand tools
require serious forethought to actually amputate a limb. A power tool
can amputate before the user knows something is wrong.

Poor power tools and dull hand tools introduce variables that can make
them impossible to use accurately, not matter what the skill level of
the user.

Barry

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?



Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

rcook writes:

Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now

It's been going on since the first caveman learned to sharpen a stone before
hitting his enemy or prey.

Charlie Self
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity
has made them good." H. L. Mencken

On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, (Mike Girouard)
wrote:

"It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."

How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.

I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
whenever he gets a ****ty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."


Yeah, well, yer full of crap.

The phrase is about the ability of the Craftsman to adapt and
overcome.

The most beautiful furniture that I have ever seen was accomplished by
men who had no access to power tools at all.

Talent and Ability Do overcome the lack of tools.

I hear constant whining along the lines of, "if I only had this xyz
wondertool I could do great work."

This is absolute bull****.

If you have a bandsaw or a table saw, you are way ahead of those who
have produced some of the most wonderful furniture known to man.


I own a Leigh Dovetail Jig - I'd be happy to sell it.

It can't make the sort of elongated tapers that I'm fond of.


I own a Delta Cabinetshop Shaper (TURT) and I'd be glad to sell it -
because it imprisons me within the profile libraries of the major
cutting tool distributors - unless I want to pay a King's ransom for a
custom knife.


The men who made furniture during the late eighteenth to the mid
nineteenth century were some of the most creative furniture making
minds known to man - and they didn't have **** for tools, compared to
us.

We find ourselves locked in a vernacular of available tooling that
restricts our work.


There are two great progenitors of Western molding profiles (actually
there is only one, the Roman is a diminution of the Greek).

Our typical tooling only embraces the Roman style of profile. We have
a bunch of Ovolo and Caveto shapes, but the use of the Ellipse is lost
to most of us.

It was not lost to the men of the age that I have previously
referenced.

If they wanted to use a section of an ellipse, as did those
Goddard-Townsend boys - they damned well made a knife up to fit their
vision.

Our vision has become restricted to that which is described by
available tooling, in the worst sense of what a market does.


While I'm already ****ing everyone off, there is a current thread
about design-proportion-and the relationship of mass and structu

Will you please, for gawd's sake, pick up a book, or better yet, go to
a museum, and look at successful furniture pieces - then cogitate on
the reasons for their success?


(as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)





Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Tom Watson wrote in message . ..
On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, (Mike Girouard)
wrote:


BIG SNIP


(as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)


That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.

If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
snip

Yeah, well, yer full of crap.

more snip

Our vision has become restricted to that which is described by
available tooling, in the worst sense of what a market does.


While I'm already ****ing everyone off, there is a current thread
about design-proportion-and the relationship of mass and structu

Will you please, for gawd's sake, pick up a book, or better yet, go to
a museum, and look at successful furniture pieces - then cogitate on
the reasons for their success?


(as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)

Tawm, have you run out of JOAT's dried frog pills?(VBG)

However . . well said. How about those *old*(very old) hand made wood body
molding(moulding for the canuckistanis) planes?

--
Nahmie
The law of intelligent tinkering: save all the parts.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:34 GMT, Ba r r y
wrote:

I'll agree that a power tool can ruin a good board faster, but
disagree that a power tool can't sometimes do a better job with less
operator skill.

Agreed. So if you just want to make flat boards, go with the machine.

I'm expecting Ikea's new range of Chippendale chairs with great
interest.

Sometimes you start with flat boards before doing something more
interesting, power tools could be useful to even the most devout
neander. After all, the 18th century had self-acting power tools for
the simple tedious work - they were called apprentices. I see no
benefit in ignoring useful power for stock preparation, but a router
won't be replacing my moulders and scratch stocks any time soon.


--
Smert' spamionam

NO! The machine is incapable of doing the job without the human, whereas
the human is capable of doing the job without the machine.

The machine is about repetition. It produces the same result, given the
same input. It can do no other.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
rcook writes:

Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now

It's been going on since the first caveman learned to sharpen a stone
before
hitting his enemy or prey.

Charlie Self
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than
Christianity
has made them good." H. L. Mencken

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:50:06 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:34 GMT, Ba r r y
wrote:

Sometimes you start with flat boards before doing something more
interesting, power tools could be useful to even the most devout
neander. After all, the 18th century had self-acting power tools for
the simple tedious work - they were called apprentices. I see no
benefit in ignoring useful power for stock preparation, but a router
won't be replacing my moulders and scratch stocks any time soon.


The 18th Century had self-feeding gang rip saws, only they were water
powered and reciprocating rather than circular and electric powered.

The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.

In article TBlrd.3297$zK1.737@trndny05, wrote:

The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.

A friend of mine is irritated by the paintings that show Jesus as (in her
words) "a skinny, wimpy-looking kind of guy". She says "He was a carpenter.
They didn't have power tools two thousand years ago. He must've been buff!"

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Tom Watson wrote:

The phrase is about the ability of the Craftsman to adapt and
overcome.

(as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)

Yeah, but there are two sides to this coin. There are a LOT of completely
worthless, dog **** tools in the world, both power and hand.

Go to Dollar Tree or Big Lots and stock up on tools, now go build me a
Chippendale high boy.

A good craftman can make up for these deficiencies to a large extent, but
you can't put a decorative edge on a piece of cherry with a hammer and an
ice pick and have it come out looking like anything.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

You obviously hold the "ancient masters" in high regard. And I will agree
that many of them did striking work. But (just to pick one example we all
know) Norm Abram makes handsome antique reproductions, which conform very
well to the originals, with only a small amount of hand work. Most of his
time is spent operating his extensive collection of power tools.

It is possible to do craftsman-like work with power tools. It just requires
a different set of skills.

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
(snip)

The most beautiful furniture that I have ever seen was accomplished by
men who had no access to power tools at all.

(snip)
Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On 1 Dec 2004 02:40:48 -0800, (Mike Girouard) wrote:

Tom Watson wrote in message . ..
On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, (Mike Girouard)
wrote:


BIG SNIP


(as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)


That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.

If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."


and if everyone had your respect for talent and skill we'd all be
living in plastic boxes and eating twinkies out of a tube....

U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.

I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
bodies?

And I get hungry just from walking to the donut box at work...

-BAT

"George" george@least wrote in message
...

The machine is about repetition. It produces the same result, given the
same input. It can do no other.

Where can I get one of those machines?

-j

You ever see pictures of the chow halls in lumber camps?

Still a few around here who worked in 'em, and they say the food made a
farmer's breakfast look like starvation rations. More carbs than protein,
though, barring game.

"Brett A. Thomas" wrote in message
...
U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.

I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
bodies?

And I get hungry just from walking to the donut box at work...

-BAT

Unless you're running windows, you're sitting at one.

"J" wrote in message
...


"George" george@least wrote in message
...

The machine is about repetition. It produces the same result, given the
same input. It can do no other.

Where can I get one of those machines?

-j

Tom Watson wrote
The most beautiful furniture that I have ever seen was accomplished by
men who had no access to power tools at all.

Chuck Hoffman wrote:
You obviously hold the "ancient masters" in high regard. And I will agree
that many of them did striking work. But (just to pick one example we all
know) Norm Abram makes handsome antique reproductions, which conform very
well to the originals, with only a small amount of hand work.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'll assume that you're not
joking and really mean what you said about Norm. I've watched
Norm, and while he does better than I do, he doesn't do all that
well. He certainly isn't up to the quality of the "ancient
masters". You might want to take a look at Tom's work before you
make comparisons.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 07:59:42 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:

NO! The machine is incapable of doing the job without the human, whereas
the human is capable of doing the job without the machine.

The machine is about repetition. It produces the same result, given the
same input. It can do no other.

The question isn't whether one can do the job without the other. It's
which part of the system (human-machine) has the skill. With modern
machinery the answer is increasingly 'the machine'.

--RC



"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
rcook writes:

Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now

It's been going on since the first caveman learned to sharpen a stone
before
hitting his enemy or prey.

Charlie Self
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than
Christianity
has made them good." H. L. Mencken


You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:30:21 -0800, "J" wrote:



"George" george@least wrote in message
...

The machine is about repetition. It produces the same result, given the
same input. It can do no other.

Where can I get one of those machines?

-j

There are a lot of automation vendors that will sell them to you -- if
you're prepared to pay enough. They're called 'machining cells' and
similar things.

--RC

You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

--
'
"Dave in Fairfax" wrote in message
...
Tom Watson wrote
The most beautiful furniture that I have ever seen was accomplished by
men who had no access to power tools at all.

Chuck Hoffman wrote:
You obviously hold the "ancient masters" in high regard. And I will
agree
that many of them did striking work. But (just to pick one example we
all
know) Norm Abram makes handsome antique reproductions, which conform
very
well to the originals, with only a small amount of hand work.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'll assume that you're not
joking and really mean what you said about Norm. I've watched
Norm, and while he does better than I do, he doesn't do all that
well. He certainly isn't up to the quality of the "ancient
masters". You might want to take a look at Tom's work before you
make comparisons.

Dave in Fairfax

On the other hand, not all the old work was up to the quality of the ancient
masters. Who knows how much crap furniture was burned or broken up?
Some of it was probably just downright ugly.

In general only the best is worth keeping and has the craftsmanship to
survive.

I don't think that anything Norm does will ever end up in a museum as an
example of the best that can be done.

-j

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:47:17 -0800, "Brett A. Thomas"
wrote:

U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.

I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
bodies?

There was a reason the cook was one of the most important people in a
lumber camp. And why there are so many jokes about bad lumber camp
cooks.

--RC


And I get hungry just from walking to the donut box at work...

-BAT

You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:26:48 -0700, s wrote:

On 1 Dec 2004 02:40:48 -0800, (Mike Girouard) wrote:

Tom Watson wrote in message . ..
On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, (Mike Girouard)
wrote:


BIG SNIP


(as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)


That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.

If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."


and if everyone had your respect for talent and skill we'd all be
living in plastic boxes and eating twinkies out of a tube....

There's a continium there and each of us gets to decide where we fall
on the continium.

Ain't freedom wonderful?

--RC
You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes