wrote in message
oups.com...

The problem isn't when the person has control of their stock, it's what
happens to their body if they lose control of their stock. Kickback
has happened to all of us at one time or another, and the girl trying
to control that short piece is asking for an accident.

A push block like ones used in a jointer would make that operation much
more safe, IMO.


That's where we disagree Larry. The push block or push stick put your hands
more in the clear is something does go wrong or they keep your hands more in
the clear in the case of tight cuts like up against the rip fence, but they
do not offer more stability to the work. They can remove control. They are
an extension to your hand and as such they are a somewhat flexible
extension. I do use them and I do not want to sound like I don't advocate
them, but every tool in its place. Likewise, do not critique a perfectly
safe procedure simply because you can. To use a push block on a piece the
size she is using is going to result in less control, and probably an
increase in likelihood of kickback. How is that possibly safer?
--

-Mike-

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Suppose that the block the girl is routing does get kicked back. What do
you believe is going to happen to her that a push block would prevent?

However I think you grossly overestimate the potential for kickback from a
router table.


That's precisely the point John. There is too much talk about kickback and
push tools, and too little consideration for whether kickback is a real
potential. It's a far more dangerous woodworker who does not understand
these dynamics than the one who is accused of not following every
conceivable safety measure.
--

-Mike-

Andy Dingley wrote:

....
One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
outweighed in no time at all. He was right.

I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...

"mac davis" wrote in message
...

I don't know if she's safe or not, but I'm a devout coward...
I use a slide jig that holds the work against the fence and makes it
really, really hard to get my fingers in the way

Just for the record - don't take my comments on this topic wrong mac... and
others. If that's what makes you comfortable, then fine. After all, for a
lot of us this is more of a sideline than a career, and it should be fun and
relaxing. (Maybe someday the relaxing part will really happen... at least
more often). The point being, do what makes you comfortable. My comments
are only directed at those which precede them, and which sought to find
fault where there was none. Those comments took on a nature of witch hunt
and ignored what the pictures themselves showed. Heck - just look at the
title of this thread.

Sometimes we who only do this stuff occasionally will adopt practices that
are beyond the required level, simply because we only do it occasionally,
and we either need or want an extra margin of safety or assurance. That's
fine. The problem comes in when we start to apply that universally and
become critical in our view of what others are doing, and that what they do
does not match up to what we do. We forget that we have adopted our
measures based more on what we feel comfortable with than what is really
necessary.

My little banner in this thread has not been one which flies in the face of
safety, but more so one which flies in the face of contrived safety. Some
topics like kickback have lost their meaning completely. My discussion with
Andy is a good example of that. We discussed the matter of the fellow
trimming a piece of wood on the table saw without a sled. The mantra of
"use a sled" has led to a point where the physics of the cut have been lost.
A perfectly safe cut is now deemed to be unsafe - because of a mantra.
There is a point where "better to be too safe" actually is not better. Once
we get to the point where we're looking for what we can see wrong all around
us, we've hit the point where our focus is on finding things, and not on
acceptable practices. That does not really benefit anyone.

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:39:47 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:36:53 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
.... snip


A workshop like this has crosscut sleds to hand, and you use them
whenever you _can_, not whenever you _must_.

Wrong. Badly wrong. You use tools, adjuncts, and procedures when they
are
appropriate, not just for the sake of proving something. This is the
perfect example of taking it too far.

So what's wrong with using a sled ?

Nothing. It's a great adjunct - in its place. It's just not necessary to
use it all of the time. There are a ton of cuts on the table saw that do
not require or even benefit from the use of it. To state that a perfectly
safe cut on a saw without one is unsafe just because they didn't use one is
wrong and that's what I commented on.


Looking at the piece being cut, I'm not at all sure most cross-cut sleds
would be able to safely hold that piece between the blade and the fence at
the start of the cut without the sled having to be pulled back such that it
was tipping off of the back of the saw or the panel almost engaging the
blade at the start of the cut - this would require raising the guard and
placing the panel under the guard prior to starting.


This is an entirely appropriate cut to do on a sled. Doing it against
the fence like this is borderline for being in the proportions where
it becomes hazardous (neither of us can really tell from that
picture).

Wrong. There is plenty of support along the fence. It only requires a
glance to see that. This is not a small piece of wood he's trimming. It's
a matter of stability against the fence. He was only trimming an inch or so
off of a piece of wood that approached a foot in length. Please explain how
that proportion is boarderline to becoming hazardous. That's the problem
with blanket statements like one commonly finds here at the wreck - they
become mantras and ignore the fundamental principles. The cut he was doing
is one which a table saw does well and poses no problems to the operator.
The fellow in the picture was far from reaching any point of wood protruding
beyond the blade to be of concern.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Andy Dingley wrote:

...
One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
outweighed in no time at all. He was right.

I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...

By this instructor's logic, most of us should not have taken Biology,
Chemistry, and in the south... English.
--

-Mike-

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:39:47 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:36:53 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
... snip


A workshop like this has crosscut sleds to hand, and you use them
whenever you _can_, not whenever you _must_.

Wrong. Badly wrong. You use tools, adjuncts, and procedures when
they
are
appropriate, not just for the sake of proving something. This is the
perfect example of taking it too far.

So what's wrong with using a sled ?

Nothing. It's a great adjunct - in its place. It's just not necessary
to
use it all of the time. There are a ton of cuts on the table saw that do
not require or even benefit from the use of it. To state that a
perfectly
safe cut on a saw without one is unsafe just because they didn't use one
is
wrong and that's what I commented on.


Looking at the piece being cut, I'm not at all sure most cross-cut sleds
would be able to safely hold that piece between the blade and the fence at
the start of the cut without the sled having to be pulled back such that
it
was tipping off of the back of the saw or the panel almost engaging the
blade at the start of the cut - this would require raising the guard and
placing the panel under the guard prior to starting.


Given that the cut being made was a rip, it's even more inappropriate to
suggest the use of a sled.
--

-Mike-

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
Andy Dingley wrote:

...
One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
outweighed in no time at all. He was right.

I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...

For which country was he "totally wrong"?

I doubt seriously that you have experienced a strong apprenticeship program
in this country, or the class distinction that still existed into the middle
of the last century, unless you were born early in that century.

Having lived and worked a factory job in the UK, where Andy is, some 40
years ago, when the apprentice system was still strong and class distinction
subtle, but present, I'd say Andy precisely described what my take would
have been at the time.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

Andy Dingley wrote:

...
One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
outweighed in no time at all. He was right.

I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...

By this instructor's logic, most of us should not have taken Biology,
Chemistry, and in the south... English.

Both of you guys are, wrongly IMO, applying your 20th century American
values to a situation that existed in another country, at another time.

Instead of "sanctimonious" or "condescending", I'll use the word
"provincial" to describe this type of thinking .. folks from elsewhere in
this, an International forum, may not be so charitable in their thoughts.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Swingman wrote:
....
Both of you guys are, wrongly IMO, applying your 20th century American
values to a situation that existed in another country, at another time.

Instead of "sanctimonious" or "condescending", I'll use the word
"provincial" to describe this type of thinking .. folks from elsewhere in
this, an International forum, may not be so charitable in their thoughts.

Say what!!?? I ken not of which you speaketh...

What in the world is wrong w/ having at least an acquaintanceship w/ any
particular arena of learning whether it is/is not going to be a long
term career?

Methinks somehow you've misunderstood the complaint....

Swingman wrote:
....
I doubt seriously that you have experienced a strong apprenticeship program
in this country, or the class distinction that still existed into the middle
of the last century, unless you were born early in that century.

Having lived and worked a factory job in the UK, where Andy is, some 40
years ago, when the apprentice system was still strong and class distinction
subtle, but present, I'd say Andy precisely described what my take would
have been at the time.

Well, it may have been a common opinion of the time although I don't
think I would have agreed even then, but, I'll grant I'm not a Brit so
have strange upstart ideas of "place"...

What's wrong w/ any person, of any perceived class having an
acquaintanceship of/with any particular field of occuption/study?
Just because they may (a) be retrained in further depth, or (b), not use
it for a profession doesn't make it "wrong" in my book...(a) may be a
less-than-optimum useage of time for those who do, indeed follow on, but
I'm not even positive of that--repetition is of benefit, too. And, we
are at least, I assume, talking of a present attitude...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

are at least, I assume, talking of a present attitude...

IMO, that assumption was what you got off the track ... for the time and
place that Andy was speaking of, I would say not.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Swingman wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

are at least, I assume, talking of a present attitude...

IMO, that assumption was what you got off the track ... for the time and
place that Andy was speaking of, I would say not.

But what I was responding to was that his post reflected that is still
his attitude...

If not, then I did misread the post.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

Methinks somehow you've misunderstood the complaint....

To the contrary ... I am thinking you misunderstood the context of the post
you replied to, both in place and time.

You did clearly say:

"I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong..."

I am saying: Who are you to say that he (the instructor) was wrong for the
time and place?

Since you have pretty well demonstrated in other posting that you have not
experienced that particular time and place, I would have to say that your
opinion on the matter is just that, and imminently subject to argument ...
which is being provided.

BTW, I enjoyed your "farm life" postings ... brought back memories. My
earliest are of cattle and rice. We raised cattle for gravy to put on the
rice.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Swingman wrote:

....
I am saying: Who are you to say that he (the instructor) was wrong for the
time and place?

OK, so perhaps I could have made my complaint more explicit in that what
I was really conveying my opinion that what Andy was saying was that
because this previous instructor of his said what he said that Andy
meant it is a waste of time to be teaching industrial arts now in
general (and to those particular students in general)...if that was not
his intent, then I did misunderstand.

How's that for obuscation...

....

BTW, I enjoyed your "farm life" postings ... brought back memories. My
earliest are of cattle and rice. We raised cattle for gravy to put on the
rice.



Thanks, at least one person wasn't totally, bored...hopefully someone
may have learned just a little or get a slight change in viewpoint as
well...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

are at least, I assume, talking of a present attitude...

IMO, that assumption was what you got off the track ... for the time and
place that Andy was speaking of, I would say not.

But what I was responding to was that his post reflected that is still
his attitude...

If not, then I did misread the post.

First you must imagine a workplace attitude and culture where "tools of the
trade" are not to be used by anyone who has not gone through the appropriate
apprenticeship, and you can then begin to understand why the instructor's
comments may not have been "totally wrong, as you stated.

My first job with a cabinet maker in England in the early 60's, I was
forbidden to use anything but the claw end of a hammer. It was a couple of
months before I convinced him that I could use a handsaw accurately and to
good effect. He _very_ grudgingly allowed that due to being short on
apprentices far enough along to get that particular job done.

My second job was in an aircraft factory where I was on "staff", wore a coat
and tie, had tea served to me on a table with a table cloth, all right next
to coverall attired "floor" workers, who had to fetch their own tea, sip it
on a bare table adjacent to mine ... and made twice the money I did.

Different "classes" of workers back in those days ... and woe betide me if I
had attempted to pick up a hacksaw out on the factory floor.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Swingman wrote:

....
First you must imagine a workplace attitude and culture where "tools of the
trade" are not to be used by anyone who has not gone through the appropriate
apprenticeship, and you can then begin to understand why the instructor's
comments may not have been "totally wrong, as you stated.

....snip...

Oh, I understand the background (jest becuz i are Amurricun dont meen I
cain't reed gud nor travle), I just fail to see how that applies in the
context in which Andy quoted his instructor...

But, we can agree to disagree...

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

Andy Dingley wrote:

...
One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a
week
we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
outweighed in no time at all. He was right.

I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...

By this instructor's logic, most of us should not have taken Biology,
Chemistry, and in the south... English.

Both of you guys are, wrongly IMO, applying your 20th century American
values to a situation that existed in another country, at another time.

Instead of "sanctimonious" or "condescending", I'll use the word
"provincial" to describe this type of thinking .. folks from elsewhere in
this, an International forum, may not be so charitable in their thoughts.


Well, this is this century Sandman. What existed 100 years ago is hardly
relevant to the conversation at hand. Everything being discussed is being
discussed in the context of today, not 100 years ago. This was after all, a
modern day shop class we saw the pictures of.
--

-Mike-

"Swingman" wrote in message
news


First you must imagine a workplace attitude and culture where "tools of
the
trade" are not to be used by anyone who has not gone through the
appropriate
apprenticeship, and you can then begin to understand why the instructor's
comments may not have been "totally wrong, as you stated.

I understand those cultural nuances Swingman, and I've experienced
environments different from what we enjoy here at home, as well. There is a
difference though between what was allowed as a part of the job, on the work
floor, even back then, and what really existed in people's lives. Even back
then, kids worked with tools outside of the workplace, albeit they hadn't
completed any apprenticship. The whole conversation has not been about the
rules of closed shops and shop rules, it's been about kids learning and
doing. I agree with Duane that the instructor was wrong in what he said,
regarless of the cultural environment at the time. Beyond that, this is
2004 and not some other time in history when things were different.


Different "classes" of workers back in those days ... and woe betide me if
I
had attempted to pick up a hacksaw out on the factory floor.


Not so different from union shops today.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

Andy Dingley wrote:

...
One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school
subject
was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a
hacksaw
again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a
week
we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
outweighed in no time at all. He was right.

I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...

By this instructor's logic, most of us should not have taken Biology,
Chemistry, and in the south... English.

Both of you guys are, wrongly IMO, applying your 20th century American
values to a situation that existed in another country, at another time.

Instead of "sanctimonious" or "condescending", I'll use the word
"provincial" to describe this type of thinking .. folks from elsewhere
in
this, an International forum, may not be so charitable in their
thoughts.


Well, this is this century Sandman. What existed 100 years ago is hardly
relevant to the conversation at hand. Everything being discussed is being
discussed in the context of today, not 100 years ago. This was after all,
a
modern day shop class we saw the pictures of.
--

Argh!!! Make that *Swingman*. Sorry about that.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

Well, this is this century Sandman. What existed 100 years ago is hardly
relevant to the conversation at hand. Everything being discussed is being
discussed in the context of today, not 100 years ago. This was after all,
modern day shop class we saw the pictures of.

Where in the hell did 100 years ago come from?

You were disagreeing with what Andy said about an instructor of his when he
was in school, in a different time and place of which you have no knowledge.
That _was_ the "context" and you just didn't snap to the change ... and just
how old do you think he is?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

Well, this is this century Sandman. What existed 100 years ago is
hardly
relevant to the conversation at hand. Everything being discussed is
being
discussed in the context of today, not 100 years ago. This was after
all,
modern day shop class we saw the pictures of.

Where in the hell did 100 years ago come from?

My bad Swingman - I was responding to the "another century" from your
previous post. It's not likely that such a term would be meant to express
what existed in 1999. It's more likely that such a comment would express
what existed a long time back in the past century, which by itself was
reflective of older conventions.


You were disagreeing with what Andy said about an instructor of his when
he
was in school, in a different time and place of which you have no
knowledge.
That _was_ the "context" and you just didn't snap to the change ... and
just
how old do you think he is?


No, neither Duane nor I disagreed with what he said about an instructor of
his, we disagreed with what the instructor said as being applicable to the
wood shop site we all viewed on the internet, and the propriety of kids
working that sort of work. There's a big difference there. It does not
matter what the instructor said 40 or 50 or 80 years ago, it's not today.
It's not relevant to what was being discussed and it's not relevant to the
school under discussion.

How old do I think Andy is? I really don't know. I often get surprised
when I see pics of folks and find that they are either younger or older than
I had imagined. I simply take Andy as I see him - a pretty well thought
out contributor who seems to have a pretty broad base of experiences he
speaks from. Like everyone else here, he's not always dead right with
everything but also like a lot of folks here, he often has some good stuff
to add to the mix.


--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

No, neither Duane nor I disagreed with what he said about an instructor of
his, we disagreed with what the instructor said as being applicable to the
wood shop site we all viewed on the internet, and the propriety of kids
working that sort of work. There's a big difference there.

Yes, there is a big difference ... unfortunately, and as I have said
repeatedly, it appears you missed the point, as well as the context, of
Andy's reply to your post. You need to go back and read it in it's entirety
with an open, instead of argumentative, mind.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04