Trouble in the Making

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:31 pm

JPG40504 wrote:"(I added "when using a miter gauge" because a pull back may be acceptible when using sleds.)" quote from Chuck above

Key word here is MAY The hazard still persists if the workpiece is NOT held tight against the sled fence(similar to workpiece moving away from the miter gauge face.) The sled DOES eliminate the drag against the table on the workpiece thus reducing the 'potential of 'cocking' the workpiece.

I don't know if we are relaxing our joint criticism of what I did but it sure seems like that to me.

Remember, this tool we all use and love so much can be a monster if it is turned loose without being properly setup.

If everything is held securely in the position where it is suppose to be, you can safely do just about anything you might want to do. But there is that great big conditional word IF.

IF everything is held securely.

It is when it is not help in proper position that all hell breaks loose.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:53 pm

dusty wrote:I don't know if we are relaxing our joint criticism of what I did but it sure seems like that to me.

Remember, this tool we all use and love so much can be a monster if it is turned loose without being properly setup.

If everything is held securely in the position where it is suppose to be, you can safely do just about anything you might want to do. But there is that great big conditional word IF.

IF everything is held securely.

It is when it is not help in proper position that all hell breaks loose.

OK Dusty: Shame on you! There, does that make you feel better?:D All this 'discussion' DOES cause exposure and hopefully prevent some one from getting hurt!

Remember! Murphy is out there! ALWAYS!!

chucks · Post by **chucks** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:18 pm

[quote="reible"]After reading Chucks comments I have to post a disagreement. (Sorry Chuck, nothing personal but I have a different view point on this)

The use of both the miter gauge and the rip fence at the same time is a bad practice.

Don't think there is any disagreement at all. (Just bad writing ability on my part)

What I was trying to convey is that I don't use a sled at all. When I purchased my table saw I added an extra Miter Gage. I then attached a 2X4 to those gages. This gives excellent support for crosscutting. Learned this at a machine shop where we used this procedure for cutting aluminum......now that stuff will really kick if you don't have good support!

charlese · Post by **charlese** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:54 pm

chucks wrote:
reible wrote:After reading Chucks comments I have to post a disagreement. (Sorry Chuck, nothing personal but I have a different view point on this)

The use of both the miter gauge and the rip fence at the same time is a bad practice.

Don't think there is any disagreement at all. (Just bad writing ability on my part)

What I was trying to convey is that I don't use a sled at all. When I purchased my table saw I added an extra Miter Gage. I then attached a 2X4 to those gages. This gives excellent support for crosscutting. Learned this at a machine shop where we used this procedure for cutting aluminum......now that stuff will really kick if you don't have good support!

Hi "chucks"!
Ed (reible's) comment of disagreement was with my post #26 in this thread, not yours! His points have been well taken and I have since tried to retract some of the things I said in that post.

The confusion is likely because you are so new to the Forum. Your user name is chucks, mine is charlese, however I sign all my posts with "Chuck". The only difference between your user name and my signature is a Capital "C" and the lack of an "s". We will have to be careful to not confuse references to either of us. Maybe you can fix this by making a signature block. An example is Ed (reible) and Ed in Tampa. This makes it easy for us to denote the differences in our reading and posting. Since we are woodworkers and not grammarians, we can't rely on everyone else to use apostrophes or capital letters as appropriate.

Keep on posting!

chucks · Post by **chucks** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:08 am

[quote="charlese"][quote="chucks"]
Hi "chucks"!
Ed (reible's) comment of disagreement was with my post #26 in this thread, not yours! His points have been well taken and I have since tried to retract some of the things I said in that post.

Darn and I was looking forward to a good bru-ha-ha...

.(haven't done the public computer message thing since Fido-net)

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:27 am

chucks wrote:
charlese wrote:
chucks wrote:
Hi "chucks"!
Ed (reible's) comment of disagreement was with my post #26 in this thread, not yours! His points have been well taken and I have since tried to retract some of the things I said in that post.

Darn and I was looking forward to a good bru-ha-ha... .(haven't done the public computer message thing since Fido-net)

Just as a suggestion to prevent the confusion (as demonstrated in the previous post), PLEASE do NOT put your comments inside someone elses 'quote'!:( Make sure you ADD your comment AFTER the last relevant "[/quote]". There are TWO(2) of these MISSING in the previous post by 'Chucks' and one(1) missing in the post preceeding by 'Charlese'.

BOTH Charlese AND Chucks Added their comment inside the others quote. A quote is defined by a leading[xuote=xxxxxx], the actual quote , and the trailing quote"[/xuote]". (I substituted an 'x' for 'q' in the preceding sentence to prevent 'extra' [/quote]s.

P.S. a CLUE is if a

xxx wrote: appears at the top of your post(when PREVIEWED???).

This is meant to be HELPFUL! It IS an easy thing to inadvertently do without realizing it.(proven by the MANY OTHER OCCURENCES)!

charlese · Post by **charlese** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:53 pm

JPG40504 wrote: There are TWO(2) of these MISSING in the previous post by 'Chucks' and one(1) missing in the post preceeding by 'Charlese'.

P.S. a CLUE is if a
xxx wrote: appears at the top of your post(when PREVIEWED???).

This is meant to be HELPFUL! It IS an easy thing to inadvertently do without realizing it.(proven by the MANY OTHER OCCURENCES)!

Not on purpose! Tricky, isn't it! We try!

charlese · Post by **charlese** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:11 pm

JPG40504 wrote:Just as a suggestion to prevent the confusion (as demonstrated in the previous post), PLEASE do NOT put your comments inside someone elses 'quote'!:( Make sure you ADD your comment AFTER the last relevant "

". There are TWO(2) of these MISSING in the previous post by 'Chucks' and one(1) missing in the post preceeding by 'Charlese'.

BOTH Charlese AND Chucks Added their comment inside the others quote. A quote is defined by a leading[xuote=xxxxxx], the actual quote , and the trailing quote"[/xuote]". (I substituted an 'x' for 'q' in the preceding sentence to prevent 'extra' [/quote]s.

P.S. a CLUE is if a

xxx wrote: appears at the top of your post(when PREVIEWED???).

This is meant to be HELPFUL! It IS an easy thing to inadvertently do without realizing it.(proven by the MANY OTHER OCCURENCES)!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not on purpose! It is all a learning experience! Sometimes tricky!

Look what happened when I tried to include JPG's entire quote in this post!:eek: Can someone explain how this one quote appears as two separate quotes with some of the quoted message appearing as a reply?

Is it because of the punctuation used and the word 'quote' which was put in brackets and proceeded with a /? Looks like the forum codes picked this up as meaning the end of a quote??

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:10 pm

Your quote got split up because I included an extra "[/quote]" at the end on my post. Normally that would NOT be the case. I think you had already surmised that!

charlese wrote:". There are TWO(2) of these MISSING in the previous post by 'Chucks' and one(1) missing in the post preceeding by 'Charlese'.

BOTH Charlese AND Chucks Added their comment inside the others quote. A quote is defined by a leading[xuote=xxxxxx], the actual quote , and the trailing quote"[/xuote]". (I substituted an 'x' for 'q' in the preceding sentence to prevent 'extra' [/xuote]s.This where the culprit was

P.S. a CLUE is if a <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<There was also a quote=xxx here which started (defined) the beginning of a new quote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not on purpose! It is all a learning experience! Sometimes tricky!

Look what happened when I tried to include JPG's entire quote in this post!:eek: Can someone explain how this one quote appears as two separate quotes with some of the quoted message appearing as a reply? Is it because of the punctuation used and the word 'quote' which was put in brackets and proceeded with a /? Looks like the forum codes picked this up as meaning the end of a quote??

One can add/edit anywhere in a reply including within another's original post when quoting them.

The thing that MUST be remembered/adhered to is the [xuote=previous poster] will precede the quote and a [/xuote] WILL define its end. When YOU quote a previous poster, the top of your post/edit page will include a quote= and will end with a /quote. You MAY insert comments either before the quote, after the quote or within the quote(if ya do this make a distinction between the original and YOUR stuff[color??]). A /quote will define the end whatever quote was last(most inside the nested quotes) defined with a quote=xxx

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:35 pm

as a 'sample' of quote delimiters.

previous post 1 wrote: 11111111111111111
previous post 2 wrote: 22222222222222222
previous post 3 wrote: 33333333333333333
<<defines end of "3"
more of 22222222
<<defines end of quote "2"
more or 11111111

<<defines end of quote "1"

When you click on 'quote' the edit page WILL include the /quote(s) which do NOT appear in the post being quoted(only their effect reveals their existance).