Just like Tom's original message, I read your message and took a good
look at myself and what I had written. I re-read both of my posts
twice. I still can't imagine why someone would think that I responded
because I was upset ("jets" are hot), or because I felt threatened. I
have used both hand tools and machinery for decades. There's nothing
that Tom said that personally threatened me or anything I do. And, if
you read my messages for very long, you'll see that they are not all
devoted to selling (or defending) my products. As far as I'm
concerned, this thread is all about Tom's biased characterization of
machine tool users (as bafoons).
It surprises me that you would read my philosophy and not see how it
would compell me to reply in Tom's thread. I'm a "truth and honesty at
all cost" kind of guy. And, I've been told that I can be pretty blunt
about it. But, please don't confuse my blunt manner with being upset
or defensive. I am just seeking some balance in the bias that Tom
originally posted. This isn't about me or my product or any other jig.
It's about an absurd characterization of a group of people that Tom
doesn't seem to understand very well.
I've been reading Steve and Robin for several years and have seen them
both express passionate opinions - even question the opinion of others
(which is what I have done). Perhaps I am more blunt than they are but
this isn't obvious to me.
While this topic would seem to be on the forefront of Tom's mind, I'm
not concerned with what tool or tools a person chooses to do their
woodwork with. I'm concerned that some people (a big majority) are
being denigraded for making a very valid choice.
Then we are basically of the same camp.
Again, I don't feel threatened in the least. And, it wasn't Tom's
example of craftsmanship that prompted my desire to add balance. I
think hand tools are great and that everyone should learn how to use
and maintain them. It was Tom's characterization of machine users that
prompted my response.
You have provided a good summary of of my point exactly. I think that
you and I are in complete agreement here. Both goups have a minority
of individuals who focus more on the tools than they do on what the
tools are used for. Tom's point could have easily been made without
expressing any bias. But, Tom's OP characterized the hand tool
woodworker as virtuous and the machine tool woodworker as a bafoon. In
spite of what he has said, I think Tom's focus really is on the tools
and not on the work. In his second post he expresses his "point" by
declaring that it is "preposterous" to think that a table saw can
produce good joinery. He firmly believes that it is only good for
rough work and that hand tools are needed to "finish" the joints. It
tells me that his "point" is at best secondary - a vehicle for the bias
which he wishes to promote (which was probably motivated by my
characterization of the dial indicator as an "old tool" in the other
Well said. Then you wouldn't disagree with the opinion that different
tools require different skills. The skills to produce a good quality
joint using a tablesaw are going to be different than the skills needed
when using handtools. If a person cannot use a particular (and
appropriate) tool to produce a good joint, it is likely that their
skills with that tool are lacking. You can't just point a board in the
general direction of a table saw and expect an accurate cut. Nor can
you just push a plane over a piece of wood and expect a true surface.
Fine craftsmanship doesn't result from a complete lack of skills. And,
the choice of a particular type of tool doesn't necessarily determine
the resulting craftsmanship.
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong but I think Tom's original
point is being missed. In other words, I think people are reading too
much into it.
I do not think Tom is saying people who use hand tools are superior to
people who use power tools or vice versa, even.
I think he is saying that a real woodworker is going to have the
finished product in mind and build an herloom.
On the other hand, there are many people out there who call themselves
woodworkers, who have all the latest tools, who read book-after-book
and article-after-article on everything woodworking, are anal in their
process to the point of silliness, all for a Pukey Duck.
Not that there is anything wrong with power tools or even Pukey Ducks
for that matter. What were the reaosn behind his story? Did he just
talk to somebody for the 100th time who declares themself a master
woodworker with all the latest tools and has read all the latest books
and magazines all the while just making bird houses a kid can make?
Did he have the privilege to speak with a man who has limited amout of
tools in his shop--and maybe nothing newer than 40-years-old--who
produces incredible work? Both? Neither? An inquiring mind would like
I have to say, I sort of know where Tom is coming from and if I am not
too careful, I sort of fall into exactly what he is talking about. I
do tend to read a lot but I think it is because I do not have enough
time in my life right now to devote to actually cutting wood. I have
not done enough actual making of things. I need to find a way to spend
more time in the garaaaa--er--shop to become more like the first guy
and less like the pukey-duck fellow.
:> Somebody please correct me if I am wrong but I think Tom's original:> point is being missed. In other words, I think people are reading too:> much into it.
: No correction needed.
: TW's like that ... being smarter than the average bear, most never snap to
: just how many chains are being yanked/legs being pulled, while he sits back
: and grins.
In other words, he's a troll.
-- Andy Barss
: Barss leaks:
:> In other words, he's a troll.
: In the same sense that S. was a "gadfly".
No, in the same sense that you, like a lot of 15-year-old boys with
poor social skills, made an offensive post, then refused to answer questions
about it. Then replied to a thoughtful post (by Ed) in an immature
and bothersome way.
You're a troll, plain and simple. And deserving of the usual
-- Andy Barss
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 21:27:56 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
("You treat a person decently, not because of who they are but because
of who you are." Granny Watson)
("For Brutus is an honorable man." WS 1564 - 1616)
It might be instructive for you to read the original post before you
formulate the intent to disparage.
("As I would not be a troll, neither would I be trolled". AL 1809 -
1865) (I before E, except after careful reflection.)
When Socrates walked the Agora in Fifth Century Athens and asked
questions of his brothers with the pure intent of disturbing the
dissembling nature of their presumptions, was he a troll?
Was Socrates the first troll?
Nay, I place myself not in the same regard as that purest of Athenian
reasoners, yet I seek to emulate him in my shabby way, as so we should
in the regard of our betters.
It was a question needing asking, you see.
("Are we not men? No, we are Devo". Devo 1978 - 1978)
There is and has always been on the Wreck the weird tendency to
attempt the cross-pollination of the metallic and the organic, a kind
of miscegenation if you will or, if you won't , if that seems entirely
too politically incorrect, you may think of it as an unreasoning
desire to join oil and water - well, there is the essence of it.
Our machinist brethren occasionally wander from their purview and drag
their otherworldly assumptions into the simple world of wooddorking.
Their world may be likened unto that of the Forms described by Plato -
unchanging, unchangeable and lacking in the perversity that so
inhabits the organic realm.
I envy them their predictability but only to the point where
prediction and predilection are confused.
Yes, their predilection confuses them when they enter the organic
realm. There are too many variables for them to deal with and they
become very tense.
What profit it a man if he gains absolute accuracy for a moment over a
material that is constantly changing, and thus loses its very soul.
Give in to it, my brothers - give in to the variability, the inherent
unpredictability, the implied possibility of wonder and wondrous
We can set our machinery to 0.0001 but our material has been changed
by the very act of processing it in that machine.
Our material will change in length and breadth and depth within one
revolution of the earth to a point that is several orders of magnitude
greater than that of our setup measurements.
Metaldorking is a game of knowledge and predictability - wooddorking
is a game of wisdom and possibility.
I submit to you the happy circumstance (for some) that a man who
begins with a Ryobi BT-3000, which has a variable of accuracy measured
in cubits, has the same chance of turning out a wonderful wooddorking
project as the man who roughs out on a CNC machine.
The machinist requires that his tools be perfect, in order to
accomplish his result. It is not a journey of discovery - it is
simply a walk from A to B.
The wooddorker must embrace the ineluctable organicity and essentially
flawed nature of his material, as he must do with himself - or do
The concentration on the machine, rather than the artifact and its
intent, is the main division.
It divides you from your art - and it divides you from your soul.
("There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." WS Hamlet A1 SV)
("Yeah, it'll cut it up for you - but the sumbitch won't teach you to
cook." Ron Popeil 1935 - ad nauseam)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.