Recollecting my thoughts on "accuracy"

Re: Let it go, Coop

Jim Crammond in Monroe, Mi

>Cooper,

Still hanging on to hurt of flunking out of the timber framing apprenticeship, eh?

I know some people in Kalamazoo who would probably let you play with them on their next barn raising. Want me to ask?

Just trying to help,

Jim

Huh?

Bob Hutchins in Central Texas

>Have you edited Coop's post, Bill? Or, are you just having a hissy fit? (Southerners know what I mean.)

I couldn't find any of the things you mentioned pejoratively, with the possible exception of the acronym "BS". Frankly, I hear far worse every day on television.

Was it an opinion piece? Definitely! Did it attack persons (not an individual) who proselytize without cause? Yes, appropriately so for an opinion!

Should you edit it? HELL NO! The thing that has made Ellis' Island the best damn site on the web is that it assumes that such heavy-handed, ultra-controlling behavior is inappropriate unless posts go too far over the top.

Go ahead and delete this, if you think it improves the discourse here. But, let me say that I've said nothing that I wouldn't have said in front of young people or my sainted grandmother who was born in 1861 and became a Baptist deacon in an era when women weren't allowed to be full members of most congregations.

BobH

Thanks, David

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>

No foul done to me

Cooper Suter

>I guess I should have added that I don't fault Wayne for deleting my post and I don't remember taking to much offense at the time when my post got deleted.

It was posted pre-expletive ban in my memory, but he cited language, and my general tone as the reasons for deleting.

I don't begrudge anyone who puts the time and effort into hosting an internet forum the right to set and enforce rules, as long as they are enforced equally for all. I see that being a host/moderator can be a thankless job, and I'm inclined to defer to their judgement.

I reposted because I figured that there was tangental relevance to the existing thread, and on rereading it, it didn't seem overly profane or attacking (granted, maybe a little).

I've had a few other things yanked before, and in all the instances I was given an explanation that made sense to me as to why posts were deleted. Hell, I may have even apologuised for overstepping.

Coop

PS,(sorry about the "h*ll").

Hurt!??

Cooper Suter

>Jim,

Your reference to the bone crushing, soul burning humiliation I suffered at the hands of that timberframer as simply "hurt" shows a great lack of compassion.

And further more, I'm not "hanging on to" it, it's just there,.....always,......from when I wake-up,......to when I fall to my bed at night after having carried it all day.

It's sort of like the load of shame you've had to bear through your life for having been born an east sider ;).

By the way, I ran into a former employee of the above mentioned guy at the home show today.

We were laughing about him selling 64ths to the customers, because they were only cutting to 16ths in the shop anyways.

Coop.

Re: I agree, -I don't

Kevin French, Antrim NH

>PN wrote "Instead of asking why the old masters did what they did, we seem to be ridiculing them for even trying. Very superior, closed off attitude, which I think is unjustified."

I would ask, why do modern WW'as do what they do? Spend a small fortune on LN, LV...etc hand planes. There are sharpening guides and angle jigs that produce a consistant razor sharp edge even for the most noivce of WW'as. Using grits of abrasives the old timers would no more understand then why we go to all the trouble and time to do it.

Re: Appropriate Conduct

Bill Murphy/Reading,PA.

>I don't know if it's true or not, but there is a story behind the word s**t.

The story goes back to the time when sewerage first began being transported in barges. It seems that raw human waste used to be put in the bottom of the barge and other garbage was put on top. Well, after several fatal explosions, the powers that be decided that it was much safer to put the sewerage on top of the garbage, thus preventing the gases from accumulating in the bottom of the barge. The acronym for �Ship High In Transit� was born.

Again, I�m not sure it�s 100% accurate, but it is out there.

Bill

Reading, PA.

Re: I agree, -I don't

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Perhaps it could be the rampant consumerism our entire society seems to embrace gladly. The old "he who has the most and best toys at death wins" bit. It gives the holder rank, bragging rights, etc.

Perhaps it could be that actively purchasing can occupy time, be considered involved in woodworking, without having to actually do any woodworking.

Perhaps it could be the love of great tools that are so pleasant to hold, use, etc.

Perhaps it could be misplaced applications of precision.

In short, I don't know why other people buy the tools they do or do what they do, long ago gave up assessing motivation unless it can be divined from the work done. I started buying LN because none of the crummy Stanleys or old woodies I bought worked for me. At the time it seemed LN's were the most reasonably priced new planes that actually helped me make flat boards.

But this is different from the question I asked, which was more to methodology. Why did this expert do something the way s/he did?

Why do you think we do what we do?

Pam

Re: Neandering tendencies

kenc

>John,

No, I didn't know that. Thanks for the link!

Actually don't feel like much of a neander tonight. Just came in from using my milling machine to cut the teeth for a plane float. Spent over an hour out there and yes, I screwed it up right at the end!

Should've stuck with the files!

Ken

Re: Huh?

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>No, I did not edit it, and I don't think Cooper edited it, either.

Re., vulgaritites, when we disguise the actual words, who are we fooling, or intending to fool? At this point, this is just a reminder that some people find them vulgar and somehow diminishing the substance of the discussion.

I agree that this is an excellent woodworking website, but not necessarily for the reasons you state, and especially not for the way you have chosen to state them. In particular, cursing WoodCentral and cursing me for suggesting a post may be "over the top" according to the stated forum rules are inappropriate and unappreciated, and diminsh the quality of this forum. Please refrain from such conduct in the future.

Re: Huh?

Bob Hutchins in Central Texas

>Truly sorry that you somehow managed to derive from my message that I was cursing you, William. Maybe you need to go back and learn how to parse sentences to derive their meaning. My tenth grade English teacher, Mrs. Penney, God rest her soul, is no longer with us; but she could teach you a lot about how to read the meaning of the written word.

I offer these words in defense of my post: "Hell" was used as an adjective to emphasize my answer to my own rhetorical question. Hardly aimed at you (unless of course you consider yourself to be the center of the universe and the recipient of all things uttered).

"damn" was also used (although slangily -- the correct usage would have been 'damned') as an adjective, emphasizing my feeling, to modify the word 'site', id est, WoodCentral. Again, hardly aimed at you or in any way cursing you or the site. If I wanted to curse you or the site, believe me, my vocabulary stretches to getting the job done in ways that you may hardly ever have imagined.

These terms have long been used in polite English and in coarse (or as you characterize them 'vulgar') usage as well. Shakespeare made liberal use of them as have many other writers of wide and good repute.

As far as the forum rules go, I believe Ellis has stated repeatedly that the acid test is whether or not a post is fit for young ears. If mine doesn't meet that test, then I am but one of legions of offenders. Watch a little TV. Visit any literature classroom above 7th grade. The other test is that posts must be civil, refraining from attacking others personally. Refer to the defense of my last statement; the same holds. I attacked no one; I flamed no one; I called no one to riot or calamitous act.

Methinks you need to lighten up a bit, William! There are many, far more onerous, dragons out there to slay. Save your energy for them and let the mild but robust use of language take its course and be enjoyed by the great unwashed masses who think that color is better than none, that feeling is better than vacuousness, that seasoning works as well for language as it does tough or tender meat.

Again, I meant no offense to you or anyone in my choice of terms. Rather, I chose them carefully to describe my feelings about what makes WC great -- freedom to express oneself without arbitrary, suffocating, self-appointed superiority of mindset -- and relying upon instinct that most would find the words I chose totally inoffensive or, at worst, only mildly irritating. In either case, the choice to be offended or irritated is that of the reader; so choose that route if you will.

BobH

Sorry............

Michael R

>but the origin of that word goes back to the origins of language. It can be traced back to Proto-Germanic and even to Proto Ino-European. It comes more directly from Old english.

More info at: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=shit&searchmode=none

Re:appropriate conduct. A little coarse, but civil. To paraphrase Shakespeare (who never used "that" word), Much ado about nothing much.

Michael R

Moderation (long)

Justin W.

>Moderating a forum doesn't seem like it would be any fun. You have to hope that people behave themselves with a level of decorum and respect that encourages frank discussion without causing anybody undue discomfort. The combination of the loose set of guidelines that Ellis has offered and the generally benevolent intentions of those who post on this forum leads to a usually focused and friendly environment.

A blatant advertisement or the use of flat-out obscenity is probably deleted with little fanfare. But as with just about anything else, the borderline cases are the hardest. And that's when it seems like it must be very unpleasant to be a moderator.

I think that William's observations about Cooper's post served as a thoughtful reminder that this is a forum that seems to strive for courtesy and respect. His post was also a very generous insight into the ruminations of the man who has volunteered to serve as the moderator of the forum. Had he deleted the post he might have been jumped on for being autocratic or over-sensitive. Had he ignored it, the discussion might have devolved into unpleasantness between the different camps on the accuracy debate or those who disagree - evidently with considerable bitterness - about how the BP forum was run.

Instead William stuck his neck out by sharing with the whole community his thoughts about the challenges of the job that he's taken on himself for our benefit. He suggested some reasons that the post might have been deleted from BP, highlighted some of the differences between BP and WC, and asked openly whether he should delete either Cooper's or Pam's post. All with a remarkable degree of respect. (And it bears noting that he didn't delete either of them.)

The problem, of course, is that "common decency" is an almost infinitely variable standard. What I might say or do in front of my children is probably different from what my neighbor would say in front of his.

It's true that community standards of decency evolve over time. (Remember that married couples on TV used to be shown sleeping in separate beds.) But William's point is also valid. Personally, I don't have any problem with unmasked profanities if used in an amusing or artful way. But others do. So, arguably, why use them at all?

Ultimately, I doubt anybody really has a fundamental problem with the use of "BS" or "damn." Ultimately it's a matter of context. And determining what context is appropriate (perhaps, "I dropped the damned hammer on my foot") as opposed to inappropriate (perhaps, "That Justin W. sure is a damned self-righteous BS-artist") is where the uncomfortable balancing act begins for a moderator.

Cursing doesn't necessarily require the use of profanity at all. While I might not have chosen the word "cursing" to describe the response to William, I think the fact that William's response was characterized as a "hissy fit" was unfair. But again, it's a matter of opinion - where I saw a thoughtful and reasoned analysis, some saw a hissy fit. While "hissy fit" may not be a pejorative expression for some, I think I'm probably not alone in seeing it as a way of attempting to demean the value of William's post. Finally, telling William that he needs to "learn how to parse sentences to derive their meaning" is just baffling to me. It's hard to imagine how that was intended to be constructive.

It comes down to different levels of tolerance, different ways of self-expression, and different ways of relating to people. William has voluntarily shouldered the unpleasant burden of moderating the forum. I tend to think we should thank him for doing so rather than mock and belittle him for his efforts.

I don't post much here and I didn't post much on BP, but I appreciate the efforts of all of the moderators and hosts past and present who have created and maintained these forums for us.

- Justin W.

Re: Huh?

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>Bob, the issue is not how I interpreted your remarks, or whether they personally offended me. Such utterances don't bother me. I sometimes say things much worse, but try to confine them to machines and tools and other inanimate objects, unfortunate outcomes of my own stupidity when interacting with aforementioned machines, and cats, deer and proselytizers who come onto my property. The problem is that words have multiple meanings, and your meaning can be misinterpreted. In one case, many people could infer that you meant that WoodCentral should be condemned to Hell (since, according to Merriam-Webster, the first definition of "damn" when used as an adjective is "damned"), a very unpleasant thought, that could significantly diminish their WC experience and inhibit their future participation.

Your other statement, Should you edit it? HELL NO! , could likewise be very easily misinterpreted by the pious or sensitive to imply that, in your opinion, anyone who would do so would again be in danger of damnation to Hell. Again, a very unpeasant thought.

I know that's not what you meant. But, I have to consider all reasonable interpretations, and even interpretations that might not be reasonable, but popular, and we have to apply Ellis's rules to those interpretations.

I have a couple of timber framing stories of my own, but I'll have to save those for another thread. As a picture is worth a thousand words, one of them requires that I return to a friend's timberframed shop with my camera.

Re: Huh?

Bob Hutchins in Central Texas

>Well said, Sir William, OTC. I was afraid that we were headed in the direction of too close moderation of expressions in good taste.

As I said before, I meant no offense and certainly didn't mean to curse you, WC or any habitues. I have this "thing" about censorship because I believe it leads to worse things. I also fully believe that liberty invokes no license to abuse the privilege.

Thank you for a good exchange and fair consideration.

Keep up the good work.

BobH

Re: being offensive

paul womack

>Cursing doesn't necessarily require the use of profanity at all.

Indeed. And it's possible to be deeply offensive without using anything other than the most genteel terms.

If (mind that conditional) I said of someone:

"you haven't been near a tool or piece of timber in the last 5 years; everyone opinion you've uttered on planing is both baseless and wrong. Your presence on this forum is a complete waste of everybody's time"

I think the person I said it of would be offended, despite that lack of any induividually insulting word.

It ain't just the language; the intent matters.

The converse is true. In a written forum, even if your intent is good, careless use of lanaguge can (all too easily) give offence.

A happy combination of care by posters, and generousity of spirit by readers can go a long way.

BugBear

Re: Silly, No Sense, and Daft.

Mike L in Trabuco Canyon, CA

>Thin-skinned.

Cheers,

Mike

Excellent!

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>