Question about infill planes

Re: Question about infill planes

Joel

>You don't seem to get the basic concept of different criteria merit different tests and the critiera you value and test for have very little to do with what I test for. You can throw lots of words like "objectivity" at me but you are trying to take your exhaustive test results and apply them to my working conditions and it just doesn't work. Your definition of performance just isn't the same as mine.

I would normally be happy to look at your entire response and carefully try to explain things better but when I read remarks like:

"What I dismiss is superstition and opinion masquerading as fact. I denounce it when it comes from those who have a financial interest in perpetuating it."

I find myself very offended that someone thinks my opinions can be so easily bought off. Possibly you can easily be swayed by trinkets but I 'm not so easy. Most people know that those who ask me for advice find out I don't even always recommend products I sell. If you call us up and ask for recommendations you will find that if we don't have a product that fits your need we will send you to our competition. We also stress basic skills rather than instant product fixes. And in the case of infills the brand I mention most by far is "Norris", not a brand I sell.

Re: Question about infill planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Joel,

You and I have had this interchange before. It always ends like this.

That you believe in the product you sell is only of value to the extent that belief is realistic. Frankly, if you are making a point of antique Norris planes as the ultimate, your beliefs are even less realistic than I thought. You can't escape that you have a clear financial interest in promoting what you sell, and that one of your major and most highly touted items is a Ray Iles infill plane. That really becomes a rather secondary issue if you demonstrate that you have perspective and can offer objective verification to support your advocacy (others show this). Using "magic" as an explanation and hyping a mystique doesn't demonstrate expertise or credibility, at least for me.

Crying victim is a way to avoid reasoned argument, and that is what you have just dodged, a response to my criticisms of your criteria, assertions, and the style in which you presented them.

I will continue to provide information that addresses clearly defined criteria, using information and methods that are available and can be replicated by others. I responded to the criteria and arguments that you offered, accordingly. I know some are suitably entertained by folks slinging opinion about here, but I've always tried to find ways for us to rise above it. Intellectual honesty, with ourselves and in our arguments is what I value, is what it will take to move the quality of our tools forward, and I believe is of greatest service to those in seach of better methods of working wood. Unbiased explanation and verifiable knowledge is what will move us forward.

In the end, I trust that folks will do a good job thinking though the information provided them, they just need to get some quality information to work with.

Re: Question about infill planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Your my kind of guy, Ken.

Yep, I'm in Sunnyvale. Sounds like you are close by.

If I'm ever crazy enough to do a third study, and if you might be interested, let me know if you might want to be one of the planers and/or evaluators.

my email is in the heading

Re: Question about infill planes

MikeW

>Hi Lyn, Hi Joel,

I've stayed out of this escalting thread and probably shouldn't even pipe up now. Let me say to both of you that I'm not trying to provoke reaction, nor even response necessarily, to this message or each other.

Most of us on WC respect both of your views, maybe for different reasons. For myself, I respect the perspectives each of you bring into a discussion.

I think there is nothing new now to be gained from this discussion on infills. It appears to me that each in stressing their view has taken and given it back in way to personal a manner. Sometimes a bit less obvious, but there nonentheless.

Thank you,

Mike Wenzloff

I personally think you two should back off from the discussion and perhaps come back to it in a day or two if you wish at that time.

Re: Question about infill planes

bob marino

>Agree with you Mike. Both Lyn and Joel bring a wealth of good info to the forum/forums. I have emailed both and gotten timely, intelligent responses. I enjoy the discourse/debate.

But let me say this - I think a line was crossed.

I have never had the pleasure of meeting Lyn, but I have Joel - several times - over time. I wouldn't know an infill from a shoehorn, but there ain't no way Joel would sell/promote a product he doesn't believe in 100%. And he has on occasion, as he states, recommended to me products that he doesn't stock.

I wish every company were headed/staffed with a person of Joel's integrity and knowledge. It's apleasure doing business with Joel and I look forward to doing moreso in the future.

Bob

Re: Question about infill planes

Steve knight

>Remember all it is the skill of the user that will really determine how well the plane will work.

Your skill in tuning sharpening setting reading grain will make a larger difference overall to how well the plane will do overall.

Then it’s what you do with the tool that is even more important. To me that’s the most important thing. Not what tools you but what you do with them.

Re: Question about infill planes

kenc

>Right on Steve,

Good post!

What is it that they say?

"It's the Indian, not the arrow that counts".

Re: Question about infill planes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I agree to a point; but the fact is there are some just plain bad tools that even expert users can't make work. Ask Sir Wm about Kunzes.

Pam

Re: Question about infill planes

Greg Sloop, Portland OR

>I thought I'd say this here, perhaps in a less contentious area...

Lets consider the cost differences. Lets say a great Infill would be, say, $1000. Lets assume Joel's assertion about edge retention is true, and further, lets assume that it's better by ten times, an incredibly unlikely thing, but lets consider that as "truth." So, five passes with the LV LA Smoother will be comparable to fifty with the infill.

So, let's compare that Infill with the LA heavy smoother in terms of price.

We'll need to buy 10 blades for the LA Heavy smoother, and I'll throw in a MK-II sharpening system too, and the cost of the smoother itself.

10 irons (this would actually give us 11 total, with the one included with the plane itself.) $300

The MK-II system is about $300. If we throw in $100 in additional platters and abrasives, that should be easily adequate. - so $400.

Now we need the smoother. It's around $175, I think.

So, we have:

$300 10 blades/irons.

$400 MK-II sharpening system

$175 LV LA Smoother.

---

$875 Total

So, the value proposition seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps that Infill is a very nice thing to have. Perhaps it's even technically superior in edge retention. They certainly are pretty. But if one's going for pretty, perhaps you ought to get into collecting art instead of so-called "tools."

I'll be the first to say that one uses what one wants. Doesn't matter a whit to me. However the origional poster wanted to know what was so special about infills. Lyn tried to "debunk" some of the hype about infills and show how, yes they are nice, yes they are pretty, yes they can be very technically proficient etc. but that they are not likely to be the very best performers in his very wide range of head to head comparisons. (Lyn's used more planes than most of us will ever do so, some at costs that make me have palpitations.)

He's tried to be as calculated as possible in defining why he likes something and why he doesn't. Yet, it seems some of the responses really miss the mark. The response I see from Joel, though interesting, seem to take issue with his findings by talking about "magic" and feelings. While these are nice and perhaps useful, it's like arguing about how Vioxx causes heart attacks, and talking about the statistical models that show this and the scientific papers etc. Yet someone else walks up and says..."Well, the purple of the box makes me feel so calm and confident in the product. I really don't think it's as bad as you imply."

How the heck can you reply to that. It's fine if the repondant wants to keep using Vioxx and risk heart attack. But to try to have any meaningful discussion when the first person is trying to use science and the best "facts" available and the other wants to talk about completely effemoral issues is preactically useless. The first approach is a quasi-scientific approach, the second isn't. I think Lyn is frustrated in Joels insistance in debating how an infill is so very wonderful, but refusing to attempt to do it in some head-to-head scientific comparison - with some scientific basis.

I know seeing the magic/religeous fervor group attack Lyn's attempt at factual and scientific comparisons frustrates me. I suspect it frustrates Lyn just as much. It's hard to use facts to dicuss things with emotions and fanciful notions.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Question about infill planes

Steve knight

>of course crap tools are out there. but that great tool user would get more out of one then someone else would. learning to make do when you have to is a good skill ot learn. I learend it a lot by being poor (G)

Re: Question about infill planes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Yes, fortunately there's always another way to get a job done and ebay's there for all the crap tools.

Pam

Re: Question about infill planes

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>I'm wondering whether that analysis should include some additional cost on the LA smoother side for your time honing those ten blades.

Best, Ted

Re: Question about infill planes

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>Perhaps, but IMHO, the result would be a superior performing plane as you'd always be using the sharpest possible blade - while using the LA BU smoother with your 10 superiorly sharpened irons.

My thought was more tongue in cheek as, personally, I suspect the LABU design is likely to have *BETTER* edge retention given equal blades not worse. But, hey I certainly wouldn't mind having 10 additional irons and the very nice sharpening system for less cash than our fictional infill alone.

As long as I'm talking here, and again this goes back to Lyn's comment that testing edge retention would require some pretty heavy duty engineering setup, but the LA bevel up style would, at least in my opinion, would seem to likely retain edge *better*, not worse than an infill, given equal irons. (Note that “equal irons” is a key factor in this discussion!)

Here's my reasoning, and obviously it should be backed up by scientific evidence.

The higher the bedding angle, the more the force of the cutting action is *across* the tip of the iron. This would tend to rip off the tip and destroy it much more quickly - again, given equal irons. (The bedding angle of an infill is obviously greater than 12 degrees, so it's clear that if this hypothesis holds, the infill should do comparatively worse – probably a lot worse.)

Further, an iron bevel down, is typically sharpened at 25-35 degrees, IIRC. This means the tip is thinner and less supported, and more likely to sustain damage.

Compare this to a blade, bedded as close as practically possible to the cutting force, using a larger grind angle. This iron should survive the best comparatively.

Joel's argument that a larger angle has worse edge retention doesn't hold much weight for me. If that were the case, then wouldn't chisels have the best edge retention at say, 10 degrees, and much worse at 45 degrees? (This is obviously directly reverse from what happens in reality.) Lets take this a bit farther. Take two chisels and bend the handle at 12 degrees and at say 50 degrees. But equal grind angles on both, say 25 degrees. Now put them vertical (the tips, not the handles) on a piece of wood and hammer away on them. Which do you suspect will sustain less edge loss, the one with a handle bent at 12 degrees or the one bent 50 degrees? Further, if you sharpen them with 25 degree bevels vs 50 degree ones, which should fail first? Clearly experience would tell us that the one with the handle bent least, with the greatest angle should fare the best! (Again, perhaps reality will be different than we expect, but there isn’t much reason to suspect this, or make claims contrary to what experience and logic tells us to expect, especially without some attempt at explaining why logic is failing us here…)

My point here, is that Joel's argument (at least on edge retention) simply doesn't pass the logic test. Perhaps what happens in reality isn't what we'd expect, but I doubt it. Further, to speculate thus with really no scientific approach to observing it and explaining why, really seems goofy to me.

Joel just claims that it's so, without any head-to-head comparisons which obviously limit as much as possible the numbers of variables. I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time accepting that.

It's very likely what Joel sees is differences in blade/iron composition. (I'll assume he's sharpened each equally well.)

I'll leave this here, but I think it's an interesting view into the arguments for vs. against infills, bedding angles, bevel up designs, and edge retention.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Question about infill planes

Patrick Gibbons, Houston

>Greg, Dan Donaldson introduced the subject of magic into this discussion with his light-hearted story about Og and the invention of planes and wood. When Joel later responded to Lyn he was using the word "magic" in a figurative sense to refer to the elements that make infills, in his estimation, superior. From what I read it appears that their bone of contention is Joel's insistence on valuing a plane based on its continuing optimum use in a real-world work environment and Lyn's evaluation of planes used in their optimum state. It seems to me that when it comes down to it, both are correct, breaking down into two general ways to approach final smoothing of a project. Which way do you work? That's what will determine who's argument holds the most water.

Re: Question about infill planes

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>Contrary.

Lyn's approach is to take as many planes as possible an analyze them in as scientific a manner as possible and tell you the observations he saw and allow you to make your own conclusions.

Joel's approach in at least this thread was to give no objective observations at all and simply claim better edge retention with no real methodical approach to explaining why.

Joel might even be right, but there's no way to tell or reproduce anything he's claimed. In the end, if you believe Joel it's simply because you believe his magic more than anyone elses who claims otherwise.

Conversely, if you look at what Lyn says, you have all the details to attempt to test it in equal circumstances and determine if he's right or now.

Evaluating Joel's position would be like trying to reproduce a scientific study with only the summary or brief to guide you. You have no details, no objective observations, only conclusions that are likely unexplained or poorly so.

IMHO, the approach Lyn uses is a lot more useful to me. Joel's is fine and nice as far as it goes, but it leaves the basis for usefulness to a user *purely* on trust in Joel, not any objective approach and scientific observation.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Question about infill planes

Joel

>Yip - you got it in one.

Re: Question about infill planes

MikeW

>***Contrary.

Lyn's approach is to take as many planes as possible an analyze them in as scientific a manner as possible and tell you the observations he saw and allow you to make your own conclusions.

...

Conversely, if you look at what Lyn says, you have all the details to attempt to test it in equal circumstances and determine if he's right or now.

...

Cheers,

Greg***

No disrespect intended towards anyone who has posted, and especially Lyn, as it the reference to his methods that are the basis of this post.

If we were discussing the molecular properties of coal, and specifically a certain region from whence the coal came from, or we were even discussing the variability in something like wood samples, we could actually have a more profitable discussion using words like scientific methodology.

While I agree that Lyn has used very good methods in what he is attempting to do, it is flawed. For a test to be scientific, it not only needs to be reproducible by the testor, it also needs to be reproducible by independent testors *AND* have a larger sampling involved.

I could be and probably am wrong here. But *if* Lyn's testing and results were based upon several planes and blades of each brand/type, and *if* these tests were run multiple times on each and every subject in the samples, results plotted and averaged, and *if* the methodology was distributed, then seperate samples were obtained by independent, multiple other testors and using the same methodologies tested, plotted and averaged those results and the whole shebang then published, it would approach scientific.

Too, these other independent testors should review and argue relative merits and shortcomings of the methodology as published. Perhaps reviewed and adjustments made and the whole thing done over.

I can all but guarentee that two people can use the identical plane, tune it for optimum results the best they can and get three seperate findings. And that would be a single test subject.

I do appluade Lyn and his dedication to this subject. All is not futile. But it is wrought with a certain degree of subjectivity nonetheless.

MikeW

Re: Question about infill planes

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

...Arthur C. Clarke

Details on #2 methodology, and the real world

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>" But *if* Lyn's testing and results were based upon several planes and blades of each brand/type, and *if* these tests were run multiple times on each and every subject in the samples, results plotted and averaged, and *if* the methodology was distributed, then seperate samples were obtained by independent, multiple other testors and using the same methodologies tested, plotted and averaged those results and the whole shebang then published, it would approach scientific."

There have been two formal studies. The first, though formal in how it was conducted, and IMO a vast improvement over what preceeded it, was very lacking in it's methodology. Failures that I went to some trouble to point out in the report of it.

The second study, which due to my only failings still has yet to be formally reported, sought to improve on the original in several respects.

Here are the planes that went into the second study:

Cast Iron BD:

#2 Lee Valley #4.5

#1 Lie-Nielsen #4.5 (both frogs)

Cast Iron BU:

#2 Lee Valley LA Smoother

#1 Lie-Nielsen #164

Infill Planes:

#2 S&S (45 & 50)

#6 Shepherd (#2 @45, #1 @ 47.5, 50, 55, 60)

#1 Ray Iles

#1 SMT (later confirmed with second SMT)

#1 Knight Japanese bladed infill

WoodBodied Planes:

#5 Knight Finish Smoother (45, 50, 55, 60, 65)

#2 Knight Coffin Smoother (50, 63)

#1 ECE/Primus (50)

#1 Mujingfang (63)

#1 HNT Gordon (60)

Not formally in the study but later compared to the others, have been the LV LA Jack (#1) and new LA BU SuperSmoother (#2).

There were multiple samples of blades, sometimes as many as a half dozen for each plane, in the case of some planes, I was able to compare Japanese to HSS to Carbon style blades.

Woods:

At least two sample of each, usually three.

BlackWood Acacia

Bloodwood

Bocote

Bubinga

Cocobolo

Casuarin

Dogwood

Ebony

Goncolo Alves

Ipe

Kauri

Lacewood

Lignum Vitae

Manguis

Fiddleback Maple

Curly Oak

Padauk

Figured Purpleheart

Brazilian Rosewood

Teak

Zebrawood

Testing:

Two testers, at least one trial for each wood sample for each plane configuration.

Three conditions:

Planer #1, Consensus evaluation by both testers

Planer #1, Blind evaluation by Tester/Planer #2

Planer #2, Blind evaluation by Tester/Planer #1

Quality of surface finish was the criteria for ratings.

The tactually smoother finish was found superior.

The finish with the lease visible chipping, tearout, stringing, etc was found superior.

The finish with the brightest, most reflective surface was found superior.

The surface with the most evenly bright finish was found superior.

The surface that offered the greater clarity of detal was found superior.

All the data was entered into the SPSS statistical database for analysis. Primary analysis found two main effects and one interaction. Angle within plane, Angle within wood are main effects. Angle within plane with respect to the type of wood is interaction. Note absence of effect of plane type.

So, not the level of scientific rigor that might be desirable, but I would assert the highest level related to plane type and blade angle that has been made available for discussion to date.

Perhaps you can see why the study and write up has taken a while.

I would end with this. Studies such as my more recent study outlined above, and my earlier one, form an objective, comparative foundation for my statements, but it doesn't end there. Though some would like to imply otherwise, I think the regular reader of this forum has the information to recognize my assertions are also developed from actual experience using hand tools to make things. What I share with you all is developed from BOTH the practical experience of using hand tools (see for example my comments on the ergonomics of plane handles) and the addition of objective, comparative, data.

I can't control what you make of it, but I can be content in knowing that I've offered you some of the best and least biased information available to date.

Re: Question about infill planes

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>So, we complain about the, allegedly, flawed study rather than the post that was completely opinion, with no logic or explanation why the assertions might be so?

Please, tell me I'm misunderstanding something.

It sounds to me like you are comparing and complaining about the pharmacologist who ran some studies which are the most scientifically based as any in existence that *may* have some flaws vs. the new age herbalist who simply claims his special blend of herbs and spices will cure your cancer. Can you tell me what's wrong with this picture?

If something is wrong with Lyn's studies, you have enough data to debunk it. However, if you're lazy like me, you're likely to look at the data and make some calculations for yourself about your belief or not.

When no data or scientific observation is brought to the table, it's more than a little hard going down. Claiming plane performance is too esoteric and ephemeral (read difficult) to understand just smacks of the persecution Galileo Galilei was subjected to because he refused to leave science to fanciful and holy beliefs.

Perhaps Lyn's done it wrong, but he's done more to advance the science of the issues than anyone else I've ever seen. Rather than criticizing him for doing it wrong, I think it would be more appropriate to do it ourselves and show via science how it's wrong.

Before I go too far and offend someone, I’ll stop here.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Question about infill planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Greg,

I appreciate the defense, and the points you are making. Particularly that a similar level of scrutiny so often is absent when opinion is presented masquerading as fact.

I don't, however, have any problems with what Mike wrote. He was pointing out legitimate limitations to my studies, and was considering their limititations with respect to good scienctific practice. I've tried to show how I have made what attempts I can to improve the methodology for the second study, but I also know that the kind of studies that would satisfy Mike's concerns would cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct.

But we chip away as best we can, and hopefully more rather than less will appreciate that we can engage in methods that make our findings more generalizable, more reproducible, and even more applicable to the interested woodworker.

Such information is influential, more so than some immediately notice. These days we have a growing number of BD planes, backbevels are frequently considered, and the number of high effective cutting angle planes has never been greater. Indeed, it wasn't long ago that folks never even conceptualized manipulating effective cutting angle when they were dealing with difficult woods, other than to use a lower angle for endgrain, Now it is common. I think some objective evidence, even though flawed, has had some real influence. Which of course, is why it is both legitimately critiqued and less honorably attacked.

Re: Question about infill planes

Ben Knebel

>Actually Greg I think the opposite will be true--edge retention on a BU plane iron will be worse than a BD iron--here's why I think so.

When planing wood the wood attempts to curl the edge of the iron under--edge rolling. The BU iron has less metal behind the edge--in the direction of the curl- so as it begins to roll under there is nothing stopping it. On a BD down iron there is more meat behind the edge--in the direction of the curl-- so I think the edge is less likely to roll. I suspect that in long term use rolled edges may become a problem on BU planes. I'm assuming the same bedding angles. No scientific testing here --just thinking about the geometries and the direction of the forces. If you draw yourself a little picture you'll see what I mean

Best Regards

Ben

Re: Question about infill planes

Frank D. in Montreal

>Hi Greg,

The beauty argument reminds me of the LN/Veritas debate that was the rage a while ago!

Anyways, the same thought as Ted came to mind when I read your post; you forgot to add my hourly wage in the comparison of value. I can't really come to a final figure but there's a lot of time invested in extra sharpening of 9 blades. I charge $50 an hour ;).

Without taking sides-- I really admire both parties--but to be fair I don't think it's quite as simple as science vs. emotions or superstition. Joel said he was more interested in how long a plane could perform acceptably well. Lyn said he was more concerned with optimal surface and that he hadn't/couldn't have tested duration of performance. Joel then talked about his own experience, not magic, which had led him to believe infills were superior in this respect. Lyn disagreed and said why (related his own experience to the contrary). I'm leaving out all the details but I think that was the crux of their disagreement about infills. They stated their cases quite clearly, and they disagree, and we can all read for ourselves if we wish. The rest of their argument IMO is a differend between the two. Their discourses are not on the same register.

But I don't think you can discount someone's experience entirely simply because this person doesn't use a scientific discourse. This is what your criticism implies. The fact that Joel used the term "magic" to describe what he liked about infills, when it became reasonably clear at least to me that he was talking about their ability to perform well for a long time, is beside the point. The metaphor was not a mystification. We can't honestly expect everyone who has something to say to adopt a scientific discourse. That's an unfair expectation. And in general, it's not because someone adopts a scientific discourse that what he says is *necessarily* more valid than someone who has a differerent experience (when this happens the mystification is reversed).

Regards,

Frank

Re: Question about infill planes

paul womack

>I'm assuming the same bedding angles.

For BU and BD?!?!? BU tend to have very low bedding angles.

I think for equal effective cutting angles, both BU and BD are similar, certainly for the length of the bevel.

In particular, if both effective angle and relief angle are the same for BU and BD planes (e.g. 55 and 12 degrees), the shape and presewntation of the cutting edge as presented is the same for the length of the bevel.

BugBear

Re: Question about infill planes

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>Go back and read the exchange starting here...

href="http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/handtools.pl?noframes;read=69805

You'll see Lyn talk about the results of his as yet unpublished, yet widely leaked study.

Joel tersely responds that he might agree on surface finish but not on edge retention. He give absolutely no detail on his comparisons, or as to way it might be so. He doesn't tell you which Infill he's referring to or what LA BU plane he's compared it to. No details about the Iron, and it's composition etc.

So, we have a detailed post from Lyn talking about his observations, followed by a "Infills have better edge retention" post.

In all subsequent posts, Joel basically brings nothing more than pure opinion without any detail to the table.

Personally I don't think Joel is right. Further, I don't think it's likely he can know himself he's right, as the tests to determine this are pretty significant and I really suspect any differences are minor. But the point is Joel makes a claim that he didn't back up in any way, and I don't think he can. It would certainly be impossible for any of us to verify or even attempt to do so. It's PURELY a "trust me" moment.

This is the problem I see with the exchange and I think it was terribly unfair to Lyn to argue with pure summary opinion to Lyn's detailed thoughts and studies.

Here, Joel goes back to the Magic.

http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/handtools.pl?noframes;read=69821

In the prior post, Lyn practically begged Joel to discuss why the infill would perform better and he chose to ignore it. He also seemed to miss the point about edge retention being likely due to the composition of the iron, and edge rather than plane type.

If I were to characterize, it seems to me that Joel was completely out of his knowledge zone and couldn't, at a minimum, speak about the differences with any specificity. He kept falling back to the old - "It's just better" stance.

If one wants to argue a point, one had better be willing to get out the facts and actually argue something. Joel never did. He just stuck to a blank, unspecified, uninformative in detail assertion that the infill was just better.

The final factual effort here...

http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/handtools.pl?noframes;read=69891

And again, Joel chooses to not respond. Why?

I could go on, but I won't.

I don't take your post as a challenge Frank, and I know it was in good heart. No offense. However, if you go back and read the thread from the beginning between Joel and Lyn and where I posted my reply, I think you'll see the stark contrast of facts vs. unsupported opinion and the lack of will on Joel's part to engage in a meaningful dialoge that would teach those of us reading something new or give us something to think about. Lyn did. That's my point.

If you don't see it, well I tried.

Cheers,

Greg