Brad nailer used for ?

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Because it's the correct way of doing it. Since the majority of people
don't
> have memory problems and can remember what was previously said, it is much
> more convenient for them not to have to wade through the previous post.

That's why the post you're responding to is trimmed to a few lines just to
remind the reader what you're replying to. There's no large post to wade
through. Makes sense to everybody else, but apparently not to you.

> Not complaining about the nails, but the fact that I've never seen him fill
> them in with a filler. Maybe we've see different Shaker furniture, but the
> few times I'm seen it, there weren't any open nail holes.
>


I have seen Norm fill several times that I can think of
immediately. The first case was a painted project IIRC
where he specifically mentioned that he like s to use
glazing compound rather than standard wood filler since
the former does not shrink.

The other time was his very first project (the medicine
cabinet with box joints) where he said that he had this
"little trick" about mixing sawdust and glue to make a filler.
Never tried that because I thought it wouldn't stain right.

Still, I think Norm crams a lot of craftsmanship in 25 min.

Marks is a little far out for me in most of his stuff, even tho
I still like watching him for technique and ideas.

---------

"Someday I hope to be good enough to be cynical of Norm"

Lou

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:09:23 -0400, the inscrutable Dave Hall
> <[email protected]> spake:
>
> >On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:50:36 -0400, Odinn <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >SNIPPO
> >>
> >>A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
> >>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> >>A: Top-posting.
> >>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
> >>
> >>http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
> >
> >No, the most annoying possible thing on usenet is people who feel
the
> >need to harp on such meaningless drivel in the middle of an
otherwise
> >on-topic post.
>
> No, the most annoying possible thing on usenet is people who feel the
> need to support these jerks' antisocial behavior which make Usenet
> posts harder to read and followup.
>
>
> >At least change the subject like a good little
> >usenetter dweeb.
>
> Why didn't you, while you were at it, Dave? Hmmm?
>

I guess I just am not a good little usenetter dweeb :-)

Dave Hall

[ Re-ordered CW's bass-ackwards style, to re-establish continuity.]

In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

[[.. munch ..]]

>>
>> Clinton, why must you top-post, especially on a short one like this?
>>
>Because it's the correct way of doing it. Since the majority of people don't
>have memory problems and can remember what was previously said, it is much
>more convenient for them not to have to wade through the previous post.

CW self-justifies his flouting of the long-established, and well-documented,
reasons for bottom-posting on the basis of his narrow and limited viewpoint.

Anyone who follows a sizeable number of message threads, particularly in
a number of different newsgroups, and/or anyone who may let a "significant"
period of time -- even if only a few _days_ -- does *not* have committed to
memory the 'current state' of every "conversation' that they have been
following.

There has been significant academic research (the general subject is
"continuity of thought patterns") done on the basic subject -- not
necessarily USENET postings, but involving other store-and-forward messaging
systems -- that has shown the following:

*IF* the communications involve a conversation between _two_ people,
*AND* the 'turn-around time' (from the time one person sends a message
until that same persons _reads_ the other person's response is comparatively
short -- what qualifies as 'comparatively short _does_ vary, but it
turns out to correlate very highly with the amount of time/effort spent
in producing the _original_ communication -- then placing the reply
first _is_ optimal.

The "comparatively short" threshold seems to be around 10-20 times the amount
of time spent on the original composition, for _most_ people. i.e., if
you spent all of five minutes reading an article, composing a reply, and
posting it, then, if you see a reply within a couple of hours, no 'context'
is needed. On the other hand, if it took you an entire working day
to produce a screed, you'll have the relevant recall 'at your fingertips'
for around a week.

Now, for a 'passive spectator' to such communications, the "continuity span"
of attention is *much* shorter. For starters, merely reading someone else's
writing does _not_ set it in 'short term' memory any nearly as firmly as if
it was something that you had written yourself. In large part, because you
read it much faster than they wrote it. Experimental evidence has shown that
while the _author_ of a relatively brief casual communication may retain
context for a couple of hours, the _spectator's_ recall is only good for
circa 15-20 minutes. Five minutes to write, vs. one minute to read.

*AND* the more 'distractions' -- other, unrelated material, that the person
is exposed to, the _shorter_ the continuity retention span is. keeping
track of half-a-dozen 'conversations' is one thing. Keeping track of
a couple of _hundred_ tends to be beyond the scope of all but very rare
individuals. MOST people's "limit" is in the 'a few dozen' range.


Clinton "knows" that:
(a) The person who wrote the item to which he is responding will see that
response within an hour or two of time they wrote *their* message.
(b) No one else has any interest in the matter.
(c) nobody would ever consider looking through 'old' messages to find an
answer to a question.
(d) a 'search engine' would never display an article to someone who had
not read _all_ the articles in the thread up to that point.

With what he "knows", top-posting is appropriate. After all, the other
possible explanation is that he is deliberately being an ass. And we all
know how unlikely that is, right?

In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>In message <[email protected]> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>[ elided material re-inserted for context ]
>
>CW self-justifies his flouting of the long-established, and well-documented,
>reasons for bottom-posting on the basis of his narrow and limited viewpoint.
>
>Anyone who follows a sizeable number of message threads, particularly in
>a number of different newsgroups, and/or anyone who may let a "significant"
>period of time -- even if only a few _days_ -- does *not* have committed to
>memory the 'current state' of every "conversation' that they have been
>following.
>
>There has been significant academic research (the general subject is
>"continuity of thought patterns") done on the basic subject -- not
>necessarily USENET postings, but involving other store-and-forward messaging
>systems -- that has shown the following:
>
> *IF* the communications involve a conversation between _two_ people,
> *AND* the 'turn-around time' (from the time one person sends a message
> until that same persons _reads_ the other person's response is comparatively
> short -- what qualifies as 'comparatively short _does_ vary, but it
> turns out to correlate very highly with the amount of time/effort spent
> in producing the _original_ communication -- then placing the reply
> first _is_ optimal.
>
> The "comparatively short" threshold seems to be around 10-20 times the amount
> of time spent on the original composition, for _most_ people. i.e., if
> you spent all of five minutes reading an article, composing a reply, and
> posting it, then, if you see a reply within a couple of hours, no 'context'
> is needed. On the other hand, if it took you an entire working day
> to produce a screed, you'll have the relevant recall 'at your fingertips'
> for around a week.
>
> Now, for a 'passive spectator' to such communications, the "continuity span"
> of attention is *much* shorter. For starters, merely reading someone else's
> writing does _not_ set it in 'short term' memory any nearly as firmly as if
> it was something that you had written yourself. In large part, because you
> read it much faster than they wrote it. Experimental evidence has shown that
> while the _author_ of a relatively brief casual communication may retain
> context for a couple of hours, the _spectator's_ recall is only good for
> circa 15-20 minutes. Five minutes to write, vs. one minute to read.
>
> *AND* the more 'distractions' -- other, unrelated material, that the person
> is exposed to, the _shorter_ the continuity retention span is. keeping
> track of half-a-dozen 'conversations' is one thing. Keeping track of
> a couple of _hundred_ tends to be beyond the scope of all but very rare
> individuals. MOST people's "limit" is in the 'a few dozen' range.
>
>
>Clinton "knows" that:
> (a) The person who wrote the item to which he is responding will see that
> response within an hour or two of time they wrote *their* message.
> (b) No one else has any interest in the matter.
> (c) nobody would ever consider looking through 'old' messages to find an
> answer to a question.
> (d) a 'search engine' would never display an article to someone who had
> not read _all_ the articles in the thread up to that point.
>
>With what he "knows", top-posting is appropriate. After all, the other
>possible explanation is that he is deliberately being an ass. And we all
>know how unlikely that is, right?
>
>
>It will prevail. Wait and see. I get damned tired of you bottom posters
>trying to make me wear out my scroll wheel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hint: if you weren't such an ass about so many things -- you wouldn't have
those problems. But you are, and you do.

Live with it.


>

Top-posted expressly for Clinton's "convenience,"




A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.



























Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?































A: Top-posting.































Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?














































In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>More an more people are seeing the light all the time.
>
>"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > Because it's the correct way of doing it. Since the majority of people
>> don't
>> > have memory problems and can remember what was previously said, it is
>much
>> > more convenient for them not to have to wade through the previous post.
>>
>> That's why the post you're responding to is trimmed to a few lines just to
>> remind the reader what you're replying to. There's no large post to wade
>> through. Makes sense to everybody else, but apparently not to you.
>>
>>
>
>

{{ Fully top-posted expressly for Clifton -- each line of follow-up added
above the older material. }}

know how unlikely that is, right?
possible explanation is that he is deliberately being an ass. And we all
With what he "knows", top-posting is appropriate. After all, the other

not read _all_ the articles in the thread up to that point.
(d) a 'search engine' would never display an article to someone who had
answer to a question.
(c) nobody would ever consider looking through 'old' messages to find an
(b) No one else has any interest in the matter.
response within an hour or two of time they wrote *their* message.
(a) The person who wrote the item to which he is responding will see that
Clinton "knows" that:

individuals. MOST people's "limit" is in the 'a few dozen' range.
a couple of _hundred_ tends to be beyond the scope of all but very rare
track of half-a-dozen 'conversations' is one thing. Keeping track of
is exposed to, the _shorter_ the continuity retention span is. keeping
*AND* the more 'distractions' -- other, unrelated material, that the person
circa 15-20 minutes. Five minutes to write, vs. one minute to read.
context for a couple of hours, the _spectator's_ recall is only good for
while the _author_ of a relatively brief casual communication may retain
read it much faster than they wrote it. Experimental evidence has shown that
it was something that you had written yourself. In large part, because you
writing does _not_ set it in 'short term' memory any nearly as firmly as if
of attention is *much* shorter. For starters, merely reading someone else's
Now, for a 'passive spectator' to such communications, the "continuity span"

for around a week.
to produce a screed, you'll have the relevant recall 'at your fingertips'
is needed. On the other hand, if it took you an entire working day
posting it, then, if you see a reply within a couple of hours, no 'context'
you spent all of five minutes reading an article, composing a reply, and
of time spent on the original composition, for _most_ people. i.e., if
The "comparatively short" threshold seems to be around 10-20 times the amount

first _is_ optimal.
in producing the _original_ communication -- then placing the reply
turns out to correlate very highly with the amount of time/effort spent
short -- what qualifies as 'comparatively short _does_ vary, but it
until that same persons _reads_ the other person's response is comparatively
*AND* the 'turn-around time' (from the time one person sends a message
*IF* the communications involve a conversation between _two_ people,

systems -- that has shown the following:
necessarily USENET postings, but involving other store-and-forward messaging
"continuity of thought patterns") done on the basic subject -- not
There has been significant academic research (the general subject is

following.
memory the 'current state' of every "conversation' that they have been
period of time -- even if only a few _days_ -- does *not* have committed to
a number of different newsgroups, and/or anyone who may let a "significant"
Anyone who follows a sizeable number of message threads, particularly in

reasons for bottom-posting on the basis of his narrow and limited viewpoint.
CW self-justifies his flouting of the long-established, and well-documented,

In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>It will prevail. Wait and see. I get damned tired of you bottom posters
>trying to make me wear out my scroll wheel.
>
>>"Robert Bonomi" Speaking his usual useless drivel.
>
>

Or stains it so dark it hard to tell that theirs grain in there.

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That is when he takes a beautiful project that he constructed out of some
> high quality lumber. And proceeds to paint it with some horrendously ugly
> green paint. Cuz it is "authentic".
>
>
>

On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:54:51 GMT, Lawrence Wasserman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Q: What is the most annoying thing about usenet?
>
> A: Stupid off-topic discussions in every newgroup about top posting
> being better/worse than bottom posting.

Funny, I thought it was people posting with no context to show what
or who they're talking about.

Yep great for small trim. It is also very useful in tandem with glue to help
secure a piece while the glue dries.
Consider it a substitute for light duty clamps where the situation would
pose a problem getting clamp on the job easily.
Once you have one, you find all kinds of uses for it.
--
Regards,

Dean Bielanowski
Editor,
Online Tool Reviews
http://www.onlinetoolreviews.com
Complete our tool survey, Win $200!
------------------------------------------------------------
Latest 6 Reviews:
- Betterley Tru-Cut Insert System
- Digital Calipers & Height Gauge
- Delta SS250 Scroll Saw (Review Updated)
- Porter Cable FR350A Framing Nailer
- WoodHaven Biscuit Master
- EZ Smart Guide System
------------------------------------------------------------


"Ron Truitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I can remember Norm saying "and then I'll just attach it with a few
> brads..." but I don't remember what he was working on.
>
> Are these used mostly for light trim and smaller dimensional lumber
> work(jewelry boxes, etc.) or do they hold a special appeal for another
> reason?
>
> I already have a finish nailer but am considering adding a brad nailer
> if good for smaller pieces of trim or stock.
>
> Would appreciate your experience and preferences.
>
> RonT
>

"Ron Truitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I can remember Norm saying "and then I'll just attach it with a few
> brads..." but I don't remember what he was working on.
>
> Are these used mostly for light trim and smaller dimensional lumber
> work(jewelry boxes, etc.) or do they hold a special appeal for another
> reason?
>
> I already have a finish nailer but am considering adding a brad nailer
> if good for smaller pieces of trim or stock.
>
> Would appreciate your experience and preferences.

I think if we were to get an honest poll, we'd find that most of the things
we "build" are not furniture - once or twice in a lifetime for each piece -
but shelves for the garage, cabinets for the basement, home "improvements"
of all sorts. If we put the question on the same poll as to whether these
projects promoted togetherness or sleeping on the sofa after the fortieth
"no, dammit, hold it right _here_ comment," I think the sofa would win.

Well, the nailer will allow you to hold with one hand, tack with the other,
and it doesn't matter what SWMBO is talking about, you won't have to
interrupt her to give directions. Clean sheets, some sandalwood-scented
body rub, and no residual bitterness. That's the real joy of nailers,
though they are also great at what Norm does.

Mine's a Bostich. It was on sale the day I had enough money.

Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Word to the wise. Everytime that Nahm uses a brad nailer, lots of folks
> >> across the land groan and cover their eyes. It is not considered good
> >> form
> >> or craftmanship to blast lots of small holes in fine furniture.
> >
> > Others have said they've seen it, but I haven't. At least *once* I'd like
> > to
> > see Norm filling the nail holes from one of his brad nailer forays.
> >
> >
> Another of Nahm's habits will cause my lovely wife to start screaming at
> him.
>
> That is when he takes a beautiful project that he constructed out of some
> high quality lumber. And proceeds to paint it with some horrendously ugly
> green paint. Cuz it is "authentic".

Regarding both...much of what Norm builds is derived from either country
or Shaker traditional pieces. Both of these used both nails and paint
routinely.

Patriarch wrote:
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>>>Others have said they've seen it, but I haven't. At least *once*
>>>>I'd like to
>>>>see Norm filling the nail holes from one of his brad nailer forays.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Another of Nahm's habits will cause my lovely wife to start screaming
>>>at him.
>>>
>>>That is when he takes a beautiful project that he constructed out of
>>>some high quality lumber. And proceeds to paint it with some
>>>horrendously ugly green paint. Cuz it is "authentic".
>>
>>Regarding both...much of what Norm builds is derived from either
>>country or Shaker traditional pieces. Both of these used both nails
>>and paint routinely.
>>
>
>
> And remember that Nahm does us all a great service. When they show the use
> of power tools, they make it MUCH easier for SWMBO to understand what we've
> raided the retirement fund for THIS time.
>
> It's also much easier to get results simliar to Nahm's than it is to make
> something similar to what David Marks does. And SWMBO probably would
> rather have it in the living room, too.
>

I'm always wondering how David Marks gets all that expensive wood, and
has a woodshed FULL of that stuff. There's no way most of us DIYers
could afford most of the stuff DM uses.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

CW wrote:
> Because it's the correct way of doing it. Since the majority of people don't
> have memory problems and can remember what was previously said, it is much
> more convenient for them not to have to wade through the previous post.
>
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:42:54 GMT, the inscrutable "CW"
>><[email protected]> spake:
>>
>>
>>>Or stains it so dark it hard to tell that theirs grain in there.
>>>
>>>"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>That is when he takes a beautiful project that he constructed out of
>
> some
>
>>>>high quality lumber. And proceeds to paint it with some horrendously
>
> ugly
>
>>>>green paint. Cuz it is "authentic".
>>
>>Clinton, why must you top-post, especially on a short one like this?
>>
>>

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

--
Odinn
RCOS #7

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Dave Hall wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:50:36 -0400, Odinn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> SNIPPO
>
>>A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>A: Top-posting.
>>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>>
>>http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
>
> No, the most annoying possible thing on usenet is people who feel the
> need to harp on such meaningless drivel in the middle of an otherwise
> on-topic post. At least change the subject like a good little
> usenetter dweeb.
>

Oh, like you did? Can you say hypocrite? I thought you could. Carry
on you little snot-nosed whiner.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:44:20 -0500, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Regarding both...much of what Norm builds is derived from either country
>or Shaker traditional pieces. Both of these used both nails and paint
>routinely.


There are antique stores full of furniture, all over New England,
that use nails and metal fasteners, and paint. Milk paint was
especially popular.

I have been to Hancock Shaker Village, outside Pittsfield, MA, many
times, and there are metal fasteners, including brads, in many
authentic pieces.

Barry

"Ron Truitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I can remember Norm saying "and then I'll just attach it with a few
> brads..." but I don't remember what he was working on.
>
> Are these used mostly for light trim and smaller dimensional lumber
> work(jewelry boxes, etc.) or do they hold a special appeal for another
> reason?
>
> I already have a finish nailer but am considering adding a brad nailer
> if good for smaller pieces of trim or stock.
>
> Would appreciate your experience and preferences.
>
> RonT
>

Special appeal of brad nailers??

Well................, Nahm does seem to have some kind of perverse
fascination with them. Although the rumors of him using them on small
children were unfounded.

Word to the wise. Everytime that Nahm uses a brad nailer, lots of folks
across the land groan and cover their eyes. It is not considered good form
or craftmanship to blast lots of small holes in fine furniture.

Home repair, trim, etc is OK. Fine furniture, NOT OK.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:50:36 -0400, Odinn <[email protected]>
wrote:

SNIPPO
>
>A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>
>http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

No, the most annoying possible thing on usenet is people who feel the
need to harp on such meaningless drivel in the middle of an otherwise
on-topic post. At least change the subject like a good little
usenetter dweeb.

Dave Hall

On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:09:23 -0400, the inscrutable Dave Hall
<[email protected]> spake:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:50:36 -0400, Odinn <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>SNIPPO
>>
>>A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>A: Top-posting.
>>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>>
>>http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
>No, the most annoying possible thing on usenet is people who feel the
>need to harp on such meaningless drivel in the middle of an otherwise
>on-topic post.

No, the most annoying possible thing on usenet is people who feel the
need to support these jerks' antisocial behavior which make Usenet
posts harder to read and followup.


>At least change the subject like a good little
>usenetter dweeb.

Why didn't you, while you were at it, Dave? Hmmm?


------
We're born hungry, wet, 'n naked, and it gets worse from there.
- http://diversify.com Website Application Programming -

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote

> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Word to the wise. Everytime that Nahm uses a brad nailer, lots of folks
>> across the land groan and cover their eyes. It is not considered good
>> form
>> or craftmanship to blast lots of small holes in fine furniture.
>
> Others have said they've seen it, but I haven't. At least *once* I'd like
> to
> see Norm filling the nail holes from one of his brad nailer forays.
>
>
Another of Nahm's habits will cause my lovely wife to start screaming at
him.

That is when he takes a beautiful project that he constructed out of some
high quality lumber. And proceeds to paint it with some horrendously ugly
green paint. Cuz it is "authentic".

On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:57:54 -0500, [email protected] (Ron Truitt)
wrote:

Wasn't a Brad Nailer really what Dr. Frank-N-Furter was after........?

A little 'cabin fever', guys ??

"Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hall wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:50:36 -0400, Odinn <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > No, the most annoying . . . change the subject like a good little
> > usenetter dweeb.
> >
>
> Oh, like you did? Can you say hypocrite? I thought you could. Carry
> on you little snot-nosed whiner.
>
> --
> Odinn
> RCOS #7

It will prevail. Wait and see. I get damned tired of you bottom posters
trying to make me wear out my scroll wheel.

>"Robert Bonomi" Speaking his usual useless drivel.

Because it's the correct way of doing it. Since the majority of people don't
have memory problems and can remember what was previously said, it is much
more convenient for them not to have to wade through the previous post.

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:42:54 GMT, the inscrutable "CW"
> <[email protected]> spake:
>
> >Or stains it so dark it hard to tell that theirs grain in there.
> >
> >"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> That is when he takes a beautiful project that he constructed out of
some
> >> high quality lumber. And proceeds to paint it with some horrendously
ugly
> >> green paint. Cuz it is "authentic".
>
> Clinton, why must you top-post, especially on a short one like this?
>
>
> ------
> We're born hungry, wet, 'n naked, and it gets worse from there.
> - http://diversify.com Website Application Programming -

[email protected] (Ron Truitt) wrote in news:24303-428174B2-154
@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net:

> I can remember Norm saying "and then I'll just attach it with a few
> brads..." but I don't remember what he was working on.
>
> Are these used mostly for light trim and smaller dimensional lumber
> work(jewelry boxes, etc.) or do they hold a special appeal for another
> reason?
>
> I already have a finish nailer but am considering adding a brad nailer
> if good for smaller pieces of trim or stock.
>
> Would appreciate your experience and preferences.
>
> RonT
>

Norm uses brads on almost everything, so remembering which project is
pretty fruitless.

What Dean said about a clamp substitute is fairly accurate, but I want
to add something. When a project will be handled or observed closely,
such as a jewelry box, I think you want to avoid using brads if you can.
The philosophy of treasure boxes is that they take your best design and
joinery skills, as part of the project.

If you nail base trim and putty the holes, well, those will be at ankle
level, maybe in the shadows, and probably need dusting. Shoot a dozen
brads (*) into a satinwood & curly maple treasure box, with inlay or
marquetry, and you might as well have used Tupperware. My opinion.
There are many acceptable joiner methods that don't require blowing a
hole in the face of the wood.

I have two brad nailers and a narrow crown stapler, all Porter Cable.
They are great for trim carpentry, bathroom cabinetry and the like. And
for some uses in furniture.

(*) Hidden clipped head brads for joinery purposes are altogether
different.

Sorry. I'll be better soon. The meds are kicking in.

Patriarch

Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> > Others have said they've seen it, but I haven't. At least *once*
>> > I'd like to
>> > see Norm filling the nail holes from one of his brad nailer forays.
>> >
>> >
>> Another of Nahm's habits will cause my lovely wife to start screaming
>> at him.
>>
>> That is when he takes a beautiful project that he constructed out of
>> some high quality lumber. And proceeds to paint it with some
>> horrendously ugly green paint. Cuz it is "authentic".
>
> Regarding both...much of what Norm builds is derived from either
> country or Shaker traditional pieces. Both of these used both nails
> and paint routinely.
>

And remember that Nahm does us all a great service. When they show the use
of power tools, they make it MUCH easier for SWMBO to understand what we've
raided the retirement fund for THIS time.

It's also much easier to get results simliar to Nahm's than it is to make
something similar to what David Marks does. And SWMBO probably would
rather have it in the living room, too.

Patriarch

Yes, bottom posting does that.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>

>
>
>
>
> A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A: Top-posting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> >More an more people are seeing the light all the time.
> >
> >"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > Because it's the correct way of doing it. Since the majority of
people
> >> don't
> >> > have memory problems and can remember what was previously said, it is
> >much
> >> > more convenient for them not to have to wade through the previous
post.
> >>
> >> That's why the post you're responding to is trimmed to a few lines just
to
> >> remind the reader what you're replying to. There's no large post to
wade
> >> through. Makes sense to everybody else, but apparently not to you.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:42:54 GMT, the inscrutable "CW"
<[email protected]> spake:

>Or stains it so dark it hard to tell that theirs grain in there.
>
>"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> That is when he takes a beautiful project that he constructed out of some
>> high quality lumber. And proceeds to paint it with some horrendously ugly
>> green paint. Cuz it is "authentic".

Clinton, why must you top-post, especially on a short one like this?


------
We're born hungry, wet, 'n naked, and it gets worse from there.
- http://diversify.com Website Application Programming -

Since he posted on the bottom, I have no idea what he's saying but,
considering the source, it's not worth reading. I just wonder how he escaped
my kill file.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >In message <[email protected]> Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >
> >[ elided material re-inserted for context ]
> >
> >CW self-justifies his flouting of the long-established, and
well-documented,
> >reasons for bottom-posting on the basis of his narrow and limited
viewpoint.
> >
> >Anyone who follows a sizeable number of message threads, particularly in
> >a number of different newsgroups, and/or anyone who may let a
"significant"
> >period of time -- even if only a few _days_ -- does *not* have committed
to
> >memory the 'current state' of every "conversation' that they have been
> >following.
> >
> >There has been significant academic research (the general subject is
> >"continuity of thought patterns") done on the basic subject -- not
> >necessarily USENET postings, but involving other store-and-forward
messaging
> >systems -- that has shown the following:
> >
> > *IF* the communications involve a conversation between _two_ people,
> > *AND* the 'turn-around time' (from the time one person sends a message
> > until that same persons _reads_ the other person's response is
comparatively
> > short -- what qualifies as 'comparatively short _does_ vary, but it
> > turns out to correlate very highly with the amount of time/effort spent
> > in producing the _original_ communication -- then placing the reply
> > first _is_ optimal.
> >
> > The "comparatively short" threshold seems to be around 10-20 times the
amount
> > of time spent on the original composition, for _most_ people. i.e., if
> > you spent all of five minutes reading an article, composing a reply,
and
> > posting it, then, if you see a reply within a couple of hours, no
'context'
> > is needed. On the other hand, if it took you an entire working day
> > to produce a screed, you'll have the relevant recall 'at your
fingertips'
> > for around a week.
> >
> > Now, for a 'passive spectator' to such communications, the "continuity
span"
> > of attention is *much* shorter. For starters, merely reading someone
else's
> > writing does _not_ set it in 'short term' memory any nearly as firmly
as if
> > it was something that you had written yourself. In large part,
because you
> > read it much faster than they wrote it. Experimental evidence has
shown that
> > while the _author_ of a relatively brief casual communication may
retain
> > context for a couple of hours, the _spectator's_ recall is only good
for
> > circa 15-20 minutes. Five minutes to write, vs. one minute to read.
> >
> > *AND* the more 'distractions' -- other, unrelated material, that the
person
> > is exposed to, the _shorter_ the continuity retention span is. keeping
> > track of half-a-dozen 'conversations' is one thing. Keeping track of
> > a couple of _hundred_ tends to be beyond the scope of all but very rare
> > individuals. MOST people's "limit" is in the 'a few dozen' range.
> >
> >
> >Clinton "knows" that:
> > (a) The person who wrote the item to which he is responding will see
that
> > response within an hour or two of time they wrote *their* message.
> > (b) No one else has any interest in the matter.
> > (c) nobody would ever consider looking through 'old' messages to find
an
> > answer to a question.
> > (d) a 'search engine' would never display an article to someone who had
> > not read _all_ the articles in the thread up to that point.
> >
> >With what he "knows", top-posting is appropriate. After all, the other
> >possible explanation is that he is deliberately being an ass. And we all
> >know how unlikely that is, right?
> >
> >
> >It will prevail. Wait and see. I get damned tired of you bottom posters
> >trying to make me wear out my scroll wheel.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hint: if you weren't such an ass about so many things -- you wouldn't
have
> those problems. But you are, and you do.
>
> Live with it.
>
>
> >

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Word to the wise. Everytime that Nahm uses a brad nailer, lots of folks
> across the land groan and cover their eyes. It is not considered good form
> or craftmanship to blast lots of small holes in fine furniture.

Others have said they've seen it, but I haven't. At least *once* I'd like to
see Norm filling the nail holes from one of his brad nailer forays.

"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Regarding both...much of what Norm builds is derived from either country
> or Shaker traditional pieces. Both of these used both nails and paint
> routinely.

Not complaining about the nails, but the fact that I've never seen him fill
them in with a filler. Maybe we've see different Shaker furniture, but the
few times I'm seen it, there weren't any open nail holes.

Q: What is the most annoying thing about usenet?

A: Stupid off-topic discussions in every newgroup about top posting
being better/worse than bottom posting.


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]

More an more people are seeing the light all the time.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Because it's the correct way of doing it. Since the majority of people
> don't
> > have memory problems and can remember what was previously said, it is
much
> > more convenient for them not to have to wade through the previous post.
>
> That's why the post you're responding to is trimmed to a few lines just to
> remind the reader what you're replying to. There's no large post to wade
> through. Makes sense to everybody else, but apparently not to you.
>
>