Wow, safety NOT first

[Mike Marlow]

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 Marlow]

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.

[Duane Bozarth]

...

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

[Mike Marlow]

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.

[Mark & Juanita]

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.

[Mike Marlow]

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

[Mike Marlow]

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

[Swingman]

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.

[Swingman]

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.

[Duane Bozarth]

Swingman wrote: ...

Say !!?? 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....

[Duane Bozarth]

Swingman wrote: ...

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/ person, of any perceived class having an acquaintanceship of/with 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...

[Swingman]

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

[Duane Bozarth]

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

If not, then I misread the post.

[Swingman]

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.

[Duane Bozarth]

...

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... :) ...

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... :)

[Swingman]

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.

[Duane Bozarth]

...

...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...

[Mike Marlow]

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 Marlow]

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.

Not so different from union shops today.

[Mike Marlow]

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