Need a combination square

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:04:42 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:43:26 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Here are some with an 0.001" accuracy, fine with me:
>> http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=32601&cat=1,42936,42941
>
>0.001 vs 0.006 (both per inch) and about the same price for a set of 3 -
>take your pick. But the Lee Valley does sell a single square - I use my
>6" square for almost everything - I've only used the 2" square on model
>RR structures, and best I can remember I've never used the 4" square.
>
>So the OP could get the single 6" square from Lee Valley for $17, which
>he could save from buying a mid-priced combination square.

I misread that. It was per inch, not per length. Mea culpa.

--
Life is an escalator:
You can move forward or backward;
you can not remain still.
-- Patricia Russell-McCloud

Get the Starrett. If cost is critical, haunt that big online auction house
until you can find one for about $25 delivered. I have two pre-owned users in
my shop and other than a missing scribe, they are perfectly fine. FWIW, I also
obtained a Brown and Sharp from the bay for less than the Starrett's go for.
It's cosmetically challenged, but as accurate as a Starrett as far as I can
tell.

My first Starrett, obtained years ago new, still lives in the plastic bag it
came in, carefully oiled after each use, is stored in the original box and is
used as my reference square only.

Money invested in precision is good money. You will get it back in reduced
wasted wood, wasted time and less frustration. Don't wait as long as I did to
have this revelation.

If your jointer is a Stanley to Type 13 #7 or 8, or a 607/608, you can send it
to me and I will set it up for you and return it...some day.

HTH
Roy


On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:41:44 -0500, Steve Barker <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
>just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
>starrett? I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions
>below that brand. <G>
>
>thanks!

Doug Miller wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:3466d$4f77c106 [email protected]:
>
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
>>> straight and square within, I believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of
>>> the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>>
>> As long as it is never dropped, banged,
>
> I take care not to do that with tools that I paid a lot of money for.
>
>> or subject to the normal useage.
>
> Pfui. Normal usage doesn't knock a square out of alignment.
>

Somehow normal useage around here always seems to include some unintended
event - like dropping something, or the likes. I'm pretty careful with my
stuff too, but...


>>
>
> What pencil mark? He asked about the difference between a Starrett
> and a six-dollar
> square *specifically* in the context of setting up a jointer.

Point taken.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 3/31/2012 8:41 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a nice
> crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering just
> what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105 starrett? I
> won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions below that brand. <G>
>
> thanks!
>
>


Since you mention a jointer specifically, you would probably be better off
with a tool really made for the purpose. Take a look at the Oneway
Multi-Gauge and see what you think. I find mine to be invaluable around the
shop for a number of jobs.

http://www.oneway.ca/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.browse&category_id=14&Itemid=2

You'll also be needing a suitable metal straight-edge and some feeler
gauges for setting up the tables so that they are co-planar.

On Mar 31, 8:41=A0pm, Steve Barker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
> nice crook in the blade. =A0I'm looking to buy a new one and was wonderin=
g
> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
> starrett? =A0 I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions
> below that brand. <G>

Old Unions are nice, cheap squares. These get used for most
general shop or household repair jobs.

Paid $25 for my used Starrett combo square and 18" rule
(flea market); would probably never have bought one new,
for list price. Very, very nice to have parts laid out and
machines set up well enough that projects go together
square and true the first time, no trimming or paring needed.
Even an expensive new Starrett would pay for itself very quickly.

Doug Miller wrote:

>
> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
> straight and square within, I believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of
> the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.

As long as it is never dropped, banged, or subject to the normal useage.
And to be frank - how much do you need that precision?

>
> For rough carpentry, the six-dollar cheapie is close enough to square
> that it won't matter.

Agreed.


> For setting up a jointer, I'd want something with a specification and
> a guarantee.

As long as you can count on that precision. It's only guaranteed to be that
way from them - not after you've been using it.

> Of course, if you don't care whether your jointed edges
> are square to the faces, the six-dollar cheapie
> will work for you on the jointer too.

Oh yeah - the classic cop out. "If you don't care" - which presumes to
suggest that you are such a precise craftsman and that other's work is
somehow less credible. You could have left this statement out of your post.
Your pencil mark will screw up your .006 precision.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Same, but I also get a message that the script crashed.
Also while typing email or newsgroups I don't see my characters for
about 5 seconds. I think they shit the bird.

On 4/2/2012 11:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
>> your update?
>
> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no avail.
>
> It has never exhibited this behavior, in five years of use, until this
> last update.
>
>
>> I still like Thunderbird, but I get pissed since they have started
>> copying MS, instead of leading. They have removed some features I used.
>> Now I have to use add ons to get them back.
>>
>> On 4/2/2012 8:41 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>
>>> I switched to Thunderbird as an email/news client, but the last "update"
>>> has now caused it problems.
>>>
>>> When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
>>> doesn't.
>
> FWIW, to any and all shitheads: I'm not the slightest bit intererested
> in the fact that _your_ TB installation somehow works perfectly, so if
> the shoe fits, somehow contain yourself, and STFU.
>

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 20:45:28 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 18:01:29 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>====================================================================
>>I'm using Windows live Mail and have never figured out how to get it to
>>indicate a quote so I do it manually. I just forgot that time.
>
>Live Mail sucks; you can't do it.
>
>I miss the old Outlook Express. Now I use Agent.
>================================================================
>
>At least I know that I wasn't missing something. I agree about Outlook
>Express. Typical Microsoft. If it works, change it.

Yeah, sucks, doesn't it? I was perfectly happy with OE as my mail
reader and Agent as my news reader. I'm not entirely happy with
Thunderbird mail, and I recently screwed the pooch and dumped most of
my saved email via a bad setting change. <blush> I'm not sure I can
get it back, but even if I do, there's a 3 month gap between backups
so I've lost some key data I wanted. All my CNC research is just
_gone_. I learned key differences between IMAP and POP3 servers the
very hard and nasty way. <sigh>

--
Life is an escalator:
You can move forward or backward;
you can not remain still.
-- Patricia Russell-McCloud

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Of course, if you don't care whether your jointed edges are square to the
> faces, the six-dollar cheapie
>will work for you on the jointer too.

LOL. I have found that an architects triangle works just fine for squaring
my jointer fence and my table saw blade.
On the other hand, a decent combination square might be desirable for
marking. My eyesight isn't quite good enough to detect an error of .006.
And my pencils aren't that sharp either. ;-)

Max

"Steve Barker" wrote:
> But having said that, i don't believe it takes a hundred dollars
> to get a square square. <G>.
--------------------
If you did, you wouldn't have posted in the first place.

Lew

"Swingman" < wrote
>
> Gotta add those useless bells and whistles and bling or it's not
> considered progress by the ADD generation
>
>snip
>
> When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
> doesn't.
>
May years ago, I was at a bar that had some Microsoft programmers there.
Every one was drinking and watching a game. I asked one of them about the
fact that every time there was an update, there seemed to be some perfectly
good functions dropped. He made a comment that made perfect sense and
agreed with my own perception. He said that they started out appealing to
geeks and nerds. To increase the business, they had to appeal to folks who
were less computer savvy. So with each upgrade, they were to "dumb it
down". And this was over twenty five years ago.

Exactly what they are doing now, I am not sure. One thing that gets me
upset is that there are many functions that are totally hidden. And no
dedicated help menu any more. I have to do web searches to find solutions
now. This is for stuff that is in the program itself.

Remember the days when all software came with a manual? A real book or
binder. There used to be stores where you could go buy this stuff. I
needed to install software and hardware for some applications that move
around some big chunks of money. No help menu! Only technical support, via
phone during limited hours, with a guy with a thick accent. Not exactly a
confidence builder.

Another feature of our "modern" techie world is the use of bad videos
instead of written instructions. As a person who doesn't hear very sell,
most of them are useless. I always grabbed a book or looked at help menus.
Now that many of those things are being eliminated, it makes it much more
difficult to do what I need to. I am smart. I am technically oriented.
The difference between me and most of the modern world, apparently, is that
I can READ and WRITE!! I must be a dinosaur.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:04:45 -0700, CW wrote:

> f it checks out dead
> on with both sides, the square IS square.
> ========================================================= That assumes
> that the blade is parallel.

Picky, picky, picky :-).
=========================================================================
I get paid to be picky. Or I used to.

On 4/2/2012 10:54 AM, tiredofspam wrote:

> Also while typing email or newsgroups I don't see my characters for
> about 5 seconds. I think they shit the bird.

Yep, that happens also, but it doesn't seem limited to TB on this laptop
with Win7. I've also noticed it when typing into text boxes in Chrome,
so I figured it was a Win7 aberration.

<SOB if TB did not do just that again ... I had to wait for a few
seconds after typing the period after "aberration" above>

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 18:01:29 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>====================================================================
>I'm using Windows live Mail and have never figured out how to get it to
>indicate a quote so I do it manually. I just forgot that time.

Live Mail sucks; you can't do it.

I miss the old Outlook Express. Now I use Agent.

On 4/1/2012 8:12 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Steve Barker<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> thanks for the reply. If i didn't care about square edges, i would have
>> kept on jointing on the table saw. But having said that, i don't
>> believe it takes a hundred dollars to get a square square.<G>.
>>
> No, it doesn't -- but you won't get that with a six-dollar square,either.

<G>. I hear ya. I've learned a lot reading these replies.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 3/31/2012 10:16 PM, Roy wrote:
>
>
> Get the Starrett. If cost is critical, haunt that big online auction house
> until you can find one for about $25 delivered. I have two pre-owned users in
> my shop and other than a missing scribe, they are perfectly fine. FWIW, I also
> obtained a Brown and Sharp from the bay for less than the Starrett's go for.
> It's cosmetically challenged, but as accurate as a Starrett as far as I can
> tell.
>
> My first Starrett, obtained years ago new, still lives in the plastic bag it
> came in, carefully oiled after each use, is stored in the original box and is
> used as my reference square only.
>
> Money invested in precision is good money. You will get it back in reduced
> wasted wood, wasted time and less frustration. Don't wait as long as I did to
> have this revelation.
>
> If your jointer is a Stanley to Type 13 #7 or 8, or a 607/608, you can send it
> to me and I will set it up for you and return it...some day.
>
> HTH
> Roy
>

LOL! thanks for the reply. No, it's a cheapie delta i got at an estate
auction today NIB. It's one step better than setting up a edge
straightening jig on the Table saw. Which is what i was about to do.

s

>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:41:44 -0500, Steve Barker<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
>> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
>> starrett? I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions
>> below that brand.<G>
>>
>> thanks!
>


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:23:06 -0700, CW wrote:

> I have a
> Starret 4-piece with both 12" and 24" blade, and find it both incredibly
> accurate and very useful (and it was free). I have a Mititoyo combo
> square that I bought in 1986. It looks its age but is in fine shape.

CW, I'm not sure what the problem is, but as you can see from the above
your response comes through jammed up against what you're replying to.
And there are no ">" on what you're responding to. Are you hitting
"reply" or "followup" in your newsletter?

If you're having a problem, I'm sure some of the Windows experts would be
glad to help.
====================================================================
I'm using Windows live Mail and have never figured out how to get it to
indicate a quote so I do it manually. I just forgot that time.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
>> straight and square within, I believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of
>> the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>
>As long as it is never dropped, banged, or

Agreed.

>subject to the normal useage.

So why would you state this? Normal usage is what the damn thing
is designed for, and the Starretts hold up incredibly well. I have
a Starret 4-piece with both 12" and 24" blade, and find it both incredibly
accurate and very useful (and it was free).

s

On Mar 31, 10:53=A0pm, "Max" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Of course, if you don't care whether your jointed edges are square to t=
he
> > faces, the six-dollar cheapie
> >will work for you on the jointer too.
>
> LOL. =A0I have found that an architects triangle works just fine for squa=
ring
> my jointer fence and my table saw blade.
> On the other hand, a decent combination square might be desirable for
> marking. =A0My eyesight isn't quite good enough to detect an error of .00=
6.
> And my pencils aren't that sharp either. =A0 ;-)
>
> Max

4x reading glasses from the dollar store. Frequently resharpen
your pencils on a piece of 400 grit paper. An 0.006" line
will seem like it's 10 feet wide.

On 4/4/2012 8:13 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 9:03 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> No, I did not install it.
>>
>> It must install when you answer you'd like to help Mozilla.
>>
>> I don't respond since those usually include some invasive stuff, like
>> how you are using it, how often, how often it crashes.
>>
>> I just log bugs.. I don't like the invasive stuff.
>>
>> On 4/3/2012 7:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2012 6:11 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>>> I don't see a test pilot screen under settings.
>>>> Nor do I find it when I search Mozilla (Thunderbird site).
>>>>
>>>> How do I get to the configuration?
>>>
>>> Go to Tools|Addons|Extensions and see if "Test Pilot" is there.
>>>
>>> I do recall seeing "Test Pilot" as included part of FireFox at some
>>> point, but I did NOT download the extension for TB, not did I enable it,
>>> not did I agree to do so prior to the last update, so it had to have
>>> been part of the update and "enabled" by default.
>>>
>>> Here it is:
>>>
>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/thunderbird/addon/test-pilot-for-thunderbird/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> In one of the recent version, 10?? it was loaded as part of the TB
> installation. If disappeared in one of the .0.01 revisions to that version.
>
> I remember clicking that I did not want it to activate it in the
> Options, but when I checked when I saw your post I could not find it.

I removed it after finding out it was indeed the culprit. Glad to have
stumbled upon it. Went online to report it at getsatisfaction.com and
someone had beat me to it by an hour.

All's well that ends well ... nice having TB playing nice again. :)

Thanks ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:41:44 -0500, Steve Barker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
>just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
>starrett? I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions
>below that brand. <G>
>
>thanks!

I'd go for the Starrett, but that said...

...you can't go wrong with Brown&Sharp or Mitutoyo.

On 3/31/2012 9:19 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Steve Barker<[email protected]> wrote in news:DvGdnZux7
> [email protected]:
>
>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
>> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
>> starrett?
>
> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be straight and square within, I
> believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>
> For rough carpentry, the six-dollar cheapie is close enough to square that it won't matter.
> For setting up a jointer, I'd want something with a specification and a guarantee. Of course, if
> you don't care whether your jointed edges are square to the faces, the six-dollar cheapie
> will work for you on the jointer too.
>

thanks for the reply. If i didn't care about square edges, i would have
kept on jointing on the table saw. But having said that, i don't
believe it takes a hundred dollars to get a square square. <G>.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 3/31/2012 9:04 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 3/31/2012 7:41 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>> jointer,
>> that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a nice
>> crook in the
>> blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering just what in the
>> world is
>> the difference between a $6 one and a $105 starrett? I won't be buying a
>> starrett, so please make suggestions below that brand. <G>
>>
>> thanks!
>
> I have this one:
>
> http://www.grizzly.com/products/4-pc-Combination-Square-12-/G5726
>
> I've had it for probably ten years, and it's worked great for me. Never
> found myself wanting for a Starrett or similar brands that cost $100 more.
>
> Didn't pick up any planes at the auction?
>

they kept them until last. We'd already been there 5 hours in the
sun.... Most of them were going for $15 or so. I heard one go $85
however. I need to study them more before buying one/some. I know
nothing about planes. I did get the delta jointer for $205 (319 on
amazon), and some pipe clamp ends.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 4/2/2012 11:27 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:13:07 -0500, Swingman wrote:
>
>> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
>> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
>> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no
>> avail.
>
> I haven't seen that behavior under Linux, so it must be an artifact of
> the interface with Windows.
>
> What I have seen under Linux, and Windows users might want to check for
> it, is that the Firefox browser gradually eats up more and more memory.
> I've gotten into the habit of killing and restarting it every week or so.

I killed FF (once-a-week update to fix what they broke on the last one)
after using it for years and went to Chrome. Chrome was sleek and fast
at first, but seems to have suddenly started hammering the cpu in the
past month or so.

Strangely enough, if Chrome starts acting upon on a website, I fire up
IE9, which is embedded like a tick in the OS, and it seems to behave
itself pretty well.

Pendulum's swing ....

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 4/2/2012 10:25 AM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 4/1/2012 10:45 PM, CW wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
>
>
>> I miss the old Outlook Express. Now I use Agent.
>> ================================================================
>>
>> At least I know that I wasn't missing something. I agree about Outlook
>> Express. Typical Microsoft. If it works, change it.
>
> Gotta add those useless bells and whistles and bling or it's not
> considered progress by the ADD generation
>
> Not to mention that after all these years MSFT still hasn't figured out
> an automatic and smooth transition from standard to daylight savings
> time. My new Win7 laptop stubbed its toe three times before it finally
> got that right.
>
> I switched to Thunderbird as an email/news client, but the last "update"
> has now caused it problems.
>
> When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
> doesn't.
> ==============================================================
> Speaking of Windows 7, anyone else think that it is a step (or three)
> backwards from XP (my question mark key is in-op).

All in all, I've had a better "Windows" experience with Vista than I've
had with 64bit Win7 ... far, far fewer small issues, like the DST thing.

Go figure ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"John McGaw" wrote in message
news:1D1er.197393$%[email protected]...

On 3/31/2012 8:41 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a nice
> crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering just
> what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105 starrett?
> I
> won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions below that brand.
> <G>
>
> thanks!
>
>


Since you mention a jointer specifically, you would probably be better off
with a tool really made for the purpose. Take a look at the Oneway
Multi-Gauge and see what you think. I find mine to be invaluable around the
shop for a number of jobs.

http://www.oneway.ca/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.browse&category_id=14&Itemid=2

You'll also be needing a suitable metal straight-edge and some feeler
gauges for setting up the tables so that they are co-planar.
===============================================================
If I were to buy a set up gauge, it would be the Align-It. Best engineered
and most versatile out there.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
> starrett? I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions
> below that brand. <G>

The difference is that the Starrett comes square and stays square. The
cheapie that my Starrett replaced was square when I got it but a few
years later it was way off. Aluminum rubbing on steel will do that.
The Starrett is all steel and some parts are hardened.

On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
> Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
> your update?

No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no avail.

It has never exhibited this behavior, in five years of use, until this
last update.


> I still like Thunderbird, but I get pissed since they have started
> copying MS, instead of leading. They have removed some features I used.
> Now I have to use add ons to get them back.
>
> On 4/2/2012 8:41 AM, Swingman wrote:


>> I switched to Thunderbird as an email/news client, but the last "update"
>> has now caused it problems.
>>
>> When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
>> doesn't.

FWIW, to any and all shitheads: I'm not the slightest bit intererested
in the fact that _your_ TB installation somehow works perfectly, so if
the shoe fits, somehow contain yourself, and STFU.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 4/2/2012 10:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
>> your update?
>
> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no avail.
>
> It has never exhibited this behavior, in five years of use, until this
> last update.

I may have at least stumbled upon the problem, and the solution.

At some point today there was a strange, graphic remnant of a screen
that apparently belongs to a new TB feature called "Test Pilot" that
kept showing up, in fragments, a few minutes after the program was
opened; the ghostlike fragments of this screen moved with the TB window,
but was obviously causing a graphic glitch within the program itself;
and although it looked ghostlike, it was active, and the few portions of
it that could be seen could be clicked on.

This screen was apparently a notification that a report was ready to
send to "Test Pilot", and was asking for permission to submit the report.

Looking under Tools, I found the Test Pilot "Settings" screen and
selected "Always submit my data" (don't ask me).

Since doing that one thing, TB has not once hung up again, and runs just
as it did in days of yore.

Anyone else with this issue may want to check this "Test Pilot" schtick
out, or preempt it altogether.

YMMV ...


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Try 0.002"

--------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Look again: "less than 0.001" deviation per inch over the entire length
of the blade".

--------------
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
That's +-0.001" OAL, not per inch, BTW.

On 4/1/2012 10:45 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message


> I miss the old Outlook Express. Now I use Agent.
> ================================================================
>
> At least I know that I wasn't missing something. I agree about Outlook
> Express. Typical Microsoft. If it works, change it.

Gotta add those useless bells and whistles and bling or it's not
considered progress by the ADD generation

Not to mention that after all these years MSFT still hasn't figured out
an automatic and smooth transition from standard to daylight savings
time. My new Win7 laptop stubbed its toe three times before it finally
got that right.

I switched to Thunderbird as an email/news client, but the last "update"
has now caused it problems.

When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
doesn't.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Did you have retention period delete your mail?
I only use exceptions. Never delete globaly (disk space settings under
server) , then on stuff I don't care about set up deletion after x
number of days. Right click properties on folders.

You probably did that backwards.

On 4/2/2012 8:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 20:45:28 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 18:01:29 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> ====================================================================
>>> I'm using Windows live Mail and have never figured out how to get it to
>>> indicate a quote so I do it manually. I just forgot that time.
>>
>> Live Mail sucks; you can't do it.
>>
>> I miss the old Outlook Express. Now I use Agent.
>> ================================================================
>>
>> At least I know that I wasn't missing something. I agree about Outlook
>> Express. Typical Microsoft. If it works, change it.
>
> Yeah, sucks, doesn't it? I was perfectly happy with OE as my mail
> reader and Agent as my news reader. I'm not entirely happy with
> Thunderbird mail, and I recently screwed the pooch and dumped most of
> my saved email via a bad setting change.<blush> I'm not sure I can
> get it back, but even if I do, there's a 3 month gap between backups
> so I've lost some key data I wanted. All my CNC research is just
> _gone_. I learned key differences between IMAP and POP3 servers the
> very hard and nasty way.<sigh>
>
> --
> Life is an escalator:
> You can move forward or backward;
> you can not remain still.
> -- Patricia Russell-McCloud

On 4/2/2012 9:47 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> "Swingman" < wrote
>>
>> Gotta add those useless bells and whistles and bling or it's not
>> considered progress by the ADD generation
>>
>> snip
>>
>> When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
>> doesn't.
>>
> May years ago, I was at a bar that had some Microsoft programmers there.
> Every one was drinking and watching a game. I asked one of them about
> the fact that every time there was an update, there seemed to be some
> perfectly good functions dropped. He made a comment that made perfect
> sense and agreed with my own perception. He said that they started out
> appealing to geeks and nerds. To increase the business, they had to
> appeal to folks who were less computer savvy. So with each upgrade, they
> were to "dumb it down". And this was over twenty five years ago.

That solves that question ... I thought it was teenage programmers. ;)

> Exactly what they are doing now, I am not sure. One thing that gets me
> upset is that there are many functions that are totally hidden. And no
> dedicated help menu any more. I have to do web searches to find
> solutions now. This is for stuff that is in the program itself.
>
> Remember the days when all software came with a manual? A real book or
> binder. There used to be stores where you could go buy this stuff. I
> needed to install software and hardware for some applications that move
> around some big chunks of money. No help menu! Only technical support,
> via phone during limited hours, with a guy with a thick accent. Not
> exactly a confidence builder.
>
> Another feature of our "modern" techie world is the use of bad videos
> instead of written instructions. As a person who doesn't hear very sell,
> most of them are useless. I always grabbed a book or looked at help
> menus. Now that many of those things are being eliminated, it makes it
> much more difficult to do what I need to. I am smart. I am technically
> oriented. The difference between me and most of the modern world,
> apparently, is that I can READ and WRITE!! I must be a dinosaur.

You left out whiz, bang, flash and blinking bling ... <g>

Otherwise, you hit the nail on the head ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:12:09 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Steve Barker <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> thanks for the reply. If i didn't care about square edges, i would have
>> kept on jointing on the table saw. But having said that, i don't
>> believe it takes a hundred dollars to get a square square. <G>.
>>
>No, it doesn't -- but you won't get that with a six-dollar square,either.
You actually might. But if you bought 50 $6 squares, the chance of
all 50 being square would be rather slim. - so when buying a $6 square
you do need to test it before leaving the store. A simple check is ti
check something for square using both sides if the square. If it
checks out dead on with both sides, the square IS square.
=========================================================
That assumes that the blade is parallel.

Steve Barker <[email protected]> wrote in news:DvGdnZux7
[email protected]:

> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
> starrett?

The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be straight and square within, I
believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.

For rough carpentry, the six-dollar cheapie is close enough to square that it won't matter.
For setting up a jointer, I'd want something with a specification and a guarantee. Of course, if
you don't care whether your jointed edges are square to the faces, the six-dollar cheapie
will work for you on the jointer too.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:3466d$4f77c106
[email protected]:

> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
>> straight and square within, I believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of
>> the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>
> As long as it is never dropped, banged,

I take care not to do that with tools that I paid a lot of money for.

>or subject to the normal useage.

Pfui. Normal usage doesn't knock a square out of alignment.

> And to be frank - how much do you need that precision?

Depends on what I'm doing. Squaring up the ends of a tabletop, probably not so much: if
the top is a parallelogram with corners 89.5 and 90.5 degrees, instead of a rectangle, it's not
likely to be noticeable.

OTOH, if I'm mitering the corners of a frame, where any deviation from exactly 45 degrees is
multiplied by *eight*, that had better be prettly darn close to dead-on -- which is why I use
my Starrett square to align the TS miter gauge to the blade.

Likewise, if I'm making table legs, I want them to be exactly, perfectly square, because if
they are not, then the aprons mortised into those legs won't be square either, and the frame
of the table will be a parallellogram instead of a rectangle -- which is why I use my Starrett
square, or one of my Jevons 3D squares (which are just as accurate) to square the jointer
fence to the outfeed table.

>>
>> For rough carpentry, the six-dollar cheapie is close enough to square
>> that it won't matter.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> For setting up a jointer, I'd want something with a specification and
>> a guarantee.
>
> As long as you can count on that precision. It's only guaranteed to be that
> way from them - not after you've been using it.

Pfui. *Using* it won't get it out of square. ABusing it will.

I don't do that.
>
>> Of course, if you don't care whether your jointed edges
>> are square to the faces, the six-dollar cheapie
>> will work for you on the jointer too.
>
> Oh yeah - the classic cop out. "If you don't care" - which presumes to
> suggest that you are such a precise craftsman and that other's work is
> somehow less credible. You could have left this statement out of your post.

If I had, I would have failed to make the point I intended to make.

> Your pencil mark will screw up your .006 precision.

What pencil mark? He asked about the difference between a Starrett and a six-dollar
square *specifically* in the context of setting up a jointer. The ONLY purpose in using a
square when setting up a jointer is to make sure that the fence is square to the table. And
that's my point: If you want your setup to be as close to perfectly square as it's possible to
get, then use a good square such as a Starrett. If a setup that's only somewhere
approximate to square is good enough for you, go ahead and use the six-dollar cheapie.
That's the difference between the two.

Steve Barker <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> thanks for the reply. If i didn't care about square edges, i would have
> kept on jointing on the table saw. But having said that, i don't
> believe it takes a hundred dollars to get a square square. <G>.
>
No, it doesn't -- but you won't get that with a six-dollar square,either.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was
>> wondering just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one
>> and a $105 starrett? I won't be buying a starrett, so please make
>> suggestions below that brand. <G>
>
> The difference is that the Starrett comes square and stays square.
> The cheapie that my Starrett replaced was square when I got it but a
> few years later it was way off. Aluminum rubbing on steel will do
> that. The Starrett is all steel and some parts are hardened.

No combination square (not even a Starrett) will stay as accurate as a
good fixed precision square. I have a couple combination squares that I
use for everyday stuff, but if I need to set up a machine, I use a fixed
square like one of these:

http://www1.mscdirect.com/cgi/NNSRIT2?PMAKA=05022348

Doug White

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:04:42 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:43:26 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Here are some with an 0.001" accuracy, fine with me:
>>> http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=32601&cat=1,42936,42941
>>
>>0.001 vs 0.006 (both per inch) and about the same price for a set of 3 -
>>take your pick. But the Lee Valley does sell a single square - I use my
>>6" square for almost everything - I've only used the 2" square on model
>>RR structures, and best I can remember I've never used the 4" square.
>>
>>So the OP could get the single 6" square from Lee Valley for $17, which
>>he could save from buying a mid-priced combination square.
>
> That's +-0.001" OAL, not per inch, BTW.

Look again: "less than 0.001" deviation per inch over the entire length of the blade".

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 4/2/2012 11:27 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:13:07 -0500, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for
>>> at least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and
>>> _after_ it checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files
>>> etc., to no avail.
>>
>> I haven't seen that behavior under Linux, so it must be an artifact
>> of the interface with Windows.
>>
>> What I have seen under Linux, and Windows users might want to check
>> for it, is that the Firefox browser gradually eats up more and more
>> memory. I've gotten into the habit of killing and restarting it every
>> week or so.
>
> I killed FF (once-a-week update to fix what they broke on the last
> one) after using it for years and went to Chrome. Chrome was sleek and
> fast at first, but seems to have suddenly started hammering the cpu in
> the past month or so.
>
> Strangely enough, if Chrome starts acting upon on a website, I fire up
> IE9, which is embedded like a tick in the OS, and it seems to behave
> itself pretty well.
>
> Pendulum's swing ....

Yes, I went back to FF after I had been swearing by Chrome for half a
year. It suddenly got really bolluxed up recently.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 4/1/2012 10:45 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message


> I miss the old Outlook Express. Now I use Agent.
> ================================================================
>
> At least I know that I wasn't missing something. I agree about Outlook
> Express. Typical Microsoft. If it works, change it.

Gotta add those useless bells and whistles and bling or it's not
considered progress by the ADD generation

Not to mention that after all these years MSFT still hasn't figured out
an automatic and smooth transition from standard to daylight savings
time. My new Win7 laptop stubbed its toe three times before it finally
got that right.

I switched to Thunderbird as an email/news client, but the last "update"
has now caused it problems.

When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
doesn't.
==============================================================
Speaking of Windows 7, anyone else think that it is a step (or three)
backwards from XP (my question mark key is in-op).

On 4/3/2012 6:11 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
> I don't see a test pilot screen under settings.
> Nor do I find it when I search Mozilla (Thunderbird site).
>
> How do I get to the configuration?

Go to Tools|Addons|Extensions and see if "Test Pilot" is there.

I do recall seeing "Test Pilot" as included part of FireFox at some
point, but I did NOT download the extension for TB, not did I enable it,
not did I agree to do so prior to the last update, so it had to have
been part of the update and "enabled" by default.

Here it is:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/thunderbird/addon/test-pilot-for-thunderbird/

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 18:01:29 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>====================================================================
>I'm using Windows live Mail and have never figured out how to get it to
>indicate a quote so I do it manually. I just forgot that time.

Live Mail sucks; you can't do it.

I miss the old Outlook Express. Now I use Agent.
================================================================

At least I know that I wasn't missing something. I agree about Outlook
Express. Typical Microsoft. If it works, change it.

I don't see a test pilot screen under settings.
Nor do I find it when I search Mozilla (Thunderbird site).

How do I get to the configuration?

I have looked at both Tools options and tools account settings, gone
through all the menus and still can't find it.

On 4/3/2012 5:30 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 10:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>> Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
>>> your update?
>>
>> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
>> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
>> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no
>> avail.
>>
>> It has never exhibited this behavior, in five years of use, until this
>> last update.
>
> I may have at least stumbled upon the problem, and the solution.
>
> At some point today there was a strange, graphic remnant of a screen
> that apparently belongs to a new TB feature called "Test Pilot" that
> kept showing up, in fragments, a few minutes after the program was
> opened; the ghostlike fragments of this screen moved with the TB window,
> but was obviously causing a graphic glitch within the program itself;
> and although it looked ghostlike, it was active, and the few portions of
> it that could be seen could be clicked on.
>
> This screen was apparently a notification that a report was ready to
> send to "Test Pilot", and was asking for permission to submit the report.
>
> Looking under Tools, I found the Test Pilot "Settings" screen and
> selected "Always submit my data" (don't ask me).
>
> Since doing that one thing, TB has not once hung up again, and runs just
> as it did in days of yore.
>
> Anyone else with this issue may want to check this "Test Pilot" schtick
> out, or preempt it altogether.
>
> YMMV ...
>
>

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:55:50 -0500, Steve Barker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 3/31/2012 9:19 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> Steve Barker<[email protected]> wrote in news:DvGdnZux7
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>>> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>>> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
>>> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
>>> starrett?
>>
>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be straight and square within, I
>> believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>>
>> For rough carpentry, the six-dollar cheapie is close enough to square that it won't matter.
>> For setting up a jointer, I'd want something with a specification and a guarantee. Of course, if
>> you don't care whether your jointed edges are square to the faces, the six-dollar cheapie
>> will work for you on the jointer too.
>>
>
>thanks for the reply. If i didn't care about square edges, i would have
>kept on jointing on the table saw. But having said that, i don't
>believe it takes a hundred dollars to get a square square. <G>.

Nor do I. Steve, take a machinist's square with you when you shop for
a combo square. Verify its accuracy and buy it. Not a prob.

--
The unexamined life is not worth living.
--Socrates

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
>> straight and square within, I believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of
>> the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>
>As long as it is never dropped, banged, or

Agreed.

>subject to the normal useage.

So why would you state this? Normal usage is what the damn thing
is designed for, and the Starretts hold up incredibly well. I have
a Starret 4-piece with both 12" and 24" blade, and find it both incredibly
accurate and very useful (and it was free).
I have a Mititoyo combo square that I bought in 1986. It looks its age but
is in fine shape. It has never been dropped. Neither have my micrometers,
calipers, indicators, etc. All it takes is paying attention. That doesn't
mean babying things. In a commercial shop, you don't have the time. Just
take care of your tools. You depend on them to make a living.

Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
your update?

I still like Thunderbird, but I get pissed since they have started
copying MS, instead of leading. They have removed some features I used.
Now I have to use add ons to get them back.

On 4/2/2012 8:41 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 10:45 PM, CW wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
>
>
>> I miss the old Outlook Express. Now I use Agent.
>> ================================================================
>>
>> At least I know that I wasn't missing something. I agree about Outlook
>> Express. Typical Microsoft. If it works, change it.
>
> Gotta add those useless bells and whistles and bling or it's not
> considered progress by the ADD generation
>
> Not to mention that after all these years MSFT still hasn't figured out
> an automatic and smooth transition from standard to daylight savings
> time. My new Win7 laptop stubbed its toe three times before it finally
> got that right.
>
> I switched to Thunderbird as an email/news client, but the last "update"
> has now caused it problems.
>
> When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
> doesn't.
>

On Mar 31, 5:41=A0pm, Steve Barker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
> nice crook in the blade. =A0I'm looking to buy a new one and was wonderin=
g
> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
> starrett? =A0 I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions
> below that brand. <G>
>
> thanks!
>
> --
> Steve Barker
> remove the "not" from my address to email

Steve-

Simple........
The $100 one is a precision instrument set.
The $6 one is a collection of junk parts.

Get a Starrett or Lufkin or Brown&Sharp or Mitutoyo.

Look on ebay, this type of stuff can be had for very reasonable cost.

One of my Starretts was my dad's.......probably over 60 years old.
My Starret & my Lufkin are >30 years old.

I don't use mine as much as I used to
but for the small amount I'd get for them I decided no to sell them.

take a look at ebay items...

330708112787
140733138219
330710929906

You could also just buy the square or protractor heads and get a new
scale online at McMaster or elsewhere


cheers
Bob

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:40:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>CW wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
>>>> straight and square within, I believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of
>>>> the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>>>
>>> As long as it is never dropped, banged, or
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> subject to the normal useage.
>>
>> So why would you state this? Normal usage is what the damn thing
>> is designed for, and the Starretts hold up incredibly well. I have
>> a Starret 4-piece with both 12" and 24" blade, and find it both incredibly
>> accurate and very useful (and it was free).
>> I have a Mititoyo combo square that I bought in 1986. It looks its age
>> but is in fine shape. It has never been dropped. Neither have my
>> micrometers, calipers, indicators, etc.
>
>I was at an auction yesterday, and the auctioneer just *threw* a
>micrometer on the table along with a bunch of other stuff like it was a

Did anyone say anything to the idiot?


>wrench. I didn't bid--and I wouldn't mind having a micrometer.

I equate auctioneers with used car salesmen. No brains and lots of
cheat. A pox on both their houses.

--
Life is an escalator:
You can move forward or backward;
you can not remain still.
-- Patricia Russell-McCloud

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 16:42:25 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:00:54 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Nor do I. Steve, take a machinist's square with you when you shop for a
>> combo square. Verify its accuracy and buy it. Not a prob.
>
>The longevity of that accuracy may be a problem. Cheap squares tend to
>wear rapidly in the groove in the head and in the rule, as well as in the
>hold down itself.

That might be an issue in a BUSY PRODUCTION SHOP, huh? <sigh> ;)

--
Life is an escalator:
You can move forward or backward;
you can not remain still.
-- Patricia Russell-McCloud

On 3/31/2012 7:41 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought jointer,
> that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a nice crook in the
> blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering just what in the world is
> the difference between a $6 one and a $105 starrett? I won't be buying a
> starrett, so please make suggestions below that brand. <G>
>
> thanks!

I have this one:

http://www.grizzly.com/products/4-pc-Combination-Square-12-/G5726

I've had it for probably ten years, and it's worked great for me. Never found
myself wanting for a Starrett or similar brands that cost $100 more.

Didn't pick up any planes at the auction?

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
>> straight and square within, I believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of
>> the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>
> As long as it is never dropped, banged, or subject to the normal useage.

> And to be frank - how much do you need that precision?

I bought a decent torque wrench last summer. I got by without one up to
this point. I used it the first time a few weeks ago. No regrets over
buying it. I think the torque wrench is analogous to the comb. sq.

On 3/31/2012 10:31 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
>> straight and square within, I believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of
>> the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>
> As long as it is never dropped, banged, or subject to the normal useage.
> And to be frank - how much do you need that precision?
>
>>
>> For rough carpentry, the six-dollar cheapie is close enough to square
>> that it won't matter.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> For setting up a jointer, I'd want something with a specification and
>> a guarantee.
>
> As long as you can count on that precision. It's only guaranteed to be that
> way from them - not after you've been using it.
>
>> Of course, if you don't care whether your jointed edges
>> are square to the faces, the six-dollar cheapie
>> will work for you on the jointer too.
>
> Oh yeah - the classic cop out. "If you don't care" - which presumes to
> suggest that you are such a precise craftsman and that other's work is
> somehow less credible. You could have left this statement out of your post.
> Your pencil mark will screw up your .006 precision.
>

For a square, I use a cheap triangle raft type square. I use it for
squaring the blade on my table saw, setting up the miter gauge, and for
quickly checking mitered frames and stretchers that I make for my wife
who paints in Acrylic.

The nice thing about it is that can survive the leap from the work bench
or saw and not loose any accuracy. (I know I should be more careful but
sometimes it hides under or behind things. )

I have had it for about 15 years and I have no idea what its precision
is, but I can make 8 mitered cuts on the four sides of a frame and have
a perfect match on the fourth corner. That is accurate enough for me.

Steve Barker wrote:
> On 3/31/2012 9:19 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> Steve Barker<[email protected]> wrote in news:DvGdnZux7
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>>> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>>> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
>>> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
>>> starrett?
>>
>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
>> straight and square within, I
>> believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of the 12" blade -- and the
>> six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>>
>> For rough carpentry, the six-dollar cheapie is close enough to square
>> that it won't matter.
>> For setting up a jointer, I'd want something with a specification and
>> a guarantee. Of course, if
>> you don't care whether your jointed edges are square to the faces, the
>> six-dollar cheapie
>> will work for you on the jointer too.
>>
>
> thanks for the reply. If i didn't care about square edges, i would have
> kept on jointing on the table saw. But having said that, i don't believe
> it takes a hundred dollars to get a square square. <G>.

One difference is one is cast and the other is forged. Forging is a more
expensive process. If you think all knives are the same then you'll
probably think all combination squares are the same. No one will
care which one you use, just like with knives. If money is tight, buy a
lessor square--and check it before you leave the store.

On 3/31/12 10:16 PM, Roy wrote:
> My first Starrett, obtained years ago new, still lives in the plastic bag it
> came in, carefully oiled after each use,

Ummm... Ok, then.




--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 4/1/12 7:08 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 07:12:53 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> What pencil mark? He asked about the difference between a Starrett
>>> and a six-dollar
>>> square *specifically* in the context of setting up a jointer.
>>
>> Point taken.
>
> Sort of; is this a one use tool? . While you may be checking the
> fence for square to the table, at other times you may be wanting to do
> other tasks with it. I've had cheap combo squares and sliding the
> rule is not smooth and that makes it difficult to set accurately.
>
> I have the Starret my FIL used for years. I'd buy one again if I had
> to.
>

If you want a dedicated uni-tasker that is dead-on accurate for the
jointer, you can go a lot cheaper and get a steel engineering square.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:41:44 -0500, Steve Barker wrote:

> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
> starrett?
> I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions below that
> brand. <G>

Well, I can't complain since I got my Starrett at an estate sale for
$5 :-). But unless you get lucky, I'd say buy a medium priced combo
square and get an engineers square for the precision work.

Even this set is accurate to +/-0.00063":

http://www.amazon.com/Groz-SS-2-4-6-US-3-Piece-Engineer/dp/B001DT16PK

Grizzly has a cheaper set but they don't specify accuracy so I'd stay
away from them.


--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:00:54 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

> Nor do I. Steve, take a machinist's square with you when you shop for a
> combo square. Verify its accuracy and buy it. Not a prob.

The longevity of that accuracy may be a problem. Cheap squares tend to
wear rapidly in the groove in the head and in the rule, as well as in the
hold down itself.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:43:26 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

> Here are some with an 0.001" accuracy, fine with me:
> http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=32601&cat=1,42936,42941

0.001 vs 0.006 (both per inch) and about the same price for a set of 3 -
take your pick. But the Lee Valley does sell a single square - I use my
6" square for almost everything - I've only used the 2" square on model
RR structures, and best I can remember I've never used the 4" square.

So the OP could get the single 6" square from Lee Valley for $17, which
he could save from buying a mid-priced combination square.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:04:45 -0700, CW wrote:

> f it checks out dead
> on with both sides, the square IS square.
> ========================================================= That assumes
> that the blade is parallel.

Picky, picky, picky :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:23:06 -0700, CW wrote:

> I have a
> Starret 4-piece with both 12" and 24" blade, and find it both incredibly
> accurate and very useful (and it was free). I have a Mititoyo combo
> square that I bought in 1986. It looks its age but is in fine shape.

CW, I'm not sure what the problem is, but as you can see from the above
your response comes through jammed up against what you're replying to.
And there are no ">" on what you're responding to. Are you hitting
"reply" or "followup" in your newsletter?

If you're having a problem, I'm sure some of the Windows experts would be
glad to help.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

CW wrote:
>
>
> "Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The difference is that the Starrett square is guaranteed to be
>>> straight and square within, I believe, +/- 0.006" over the length of
>>> the 12" blade -- and the six-dollar cheapie isn't.
>>
>> As long as it is never dropped, banged, or
>
> Agreed.
>
>> subject to the normal useage.
>
> So why would you state this? Normal usage is what the damn thing
> is designed for, and the Starretts hold up incredibly well. I have
> a Starret 4-piece with both 12" and 24" blade, and find it both incredibly
> accurate and very useful (and it was free).
> I have a Mititoyo combo square that I bought in 1986. It looks its age
> but is in fine shape. It has never been dropped. Neither have my
> micrometers, calipers, indicators, etc.

I was at an auction yesterday, and the auctioneer just *threw* a
micrometer on the table along with a bunch of other stuff like it was a
wrench. I didn't bid--and I wouldn't mind having a micrometer.


All it takes is paying
> attention. That doesn't mean babying things. In a commercial shop, you
> don't have the time. Just take care of your tools. You depend on them to
> make a living.

On 4/2/2012 8:41 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 10:45 PM, CW wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
>
>
>> I miss the old Outlook Express. Now I use Agent.
>> ================================================================
>>
>> At least I know that I wasn't missing something. I agree about Outlook
>> Express. Typical Microsoft. If it works, change it.
>
> Gotta add those useless bells and whistles and bling or it's not
> considered progress by the ADD generation
>
> Not to mention that after all these years MSFT still hasn't figured out
> an automatic and smooth transition from standard to daylight savings
> time. My new Win7 laptop stubbed its toe three times before it finally
> got that right.
>
> I switched to Thunderbird as an email/news client, but the last "update"
> has now caused it problems.
>
> When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
> doesn't.
>

I am using the most recent TB 11.0.1 which was just released. I have
was not having problems with TB 11 but always keep my programs current
for the security updates.

Have you contacted mozilla.support.thunderbird for help with your problems?

On 4/2/2012 11:54 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
> Same, but I also get a message that the script crashed.
> Also while typing email or newsgroups I don't see my characters for
> about 5 seconds. I think they shit the bird.

I've been having that problem while typing too (not being able to find
or move the cursor)! It's nice to know I'm not the only one! Maybe we
can look forward to it being fixed!!!

Yes, Yes, Yes--We've all been there. How many times have you kicked
yourself for fixing software that wasn't broke.....

Bill

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:13:07 -0500, Swingman wrote:

> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no
> avail.

I haven't seen that behavior under Linux, so it must be an artifact of
the interface with Windows.

What I have seen under Linux, and Windows users might want to check for
it, is that the Firefox browser gradually eats up more and more memory.
I've gotten into the habit of killing and restarting it every week or so.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 4/2/2012 11:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
>> your update?
>
> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no avail.
>
> It has never exhibited this behavior, in five years of use, until this
> last update.
>
>
>> I still like Thunderbird, but I get pissed since they have started
>> copying MS, instead of leading. They have removed some features I used.
>> Now I have to use add ons to get them back.
>>
>> On 4/2/2012 8:41 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>
>>> I switched to Thunderbird as an email/news client, but the last "update"
>>> has now caused it problems.
>>>
>>> When things work, ya gotta fuck with it in the name of looks, until it
>>> doesn't.
>
> FWIW, to any and all shitheads: I'm not the slightest bit intererested
> in the fact that _your_ TB installation somehow works perfectly, so if
> the shoe fits, somehow contain yourself, and STFU.
>
I did respond that my installation works, and have worked through many
problem with the many version of TB to get it to work like it does
today. I am sorry that I offended you by offered to help with your
problem when it is obvious you would rather complain that get it fixed.

On 4/03/12 7:11 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
> I don't see a test pilot screen under settings.
> Nor do I find it when I search Mozilla (Thunderbird site).
>
> How do I get to the configuration?
>
> I have looked at both Tools options and tools account settings, gone
> through all the menus and still can't find it.
>
> On 4/3/2012 5:30 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/2/2012 10:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>>> Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
>>>> your update?
>>>
>>> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
>>> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
>>> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no
>>> avail.
>>>
>>> It has never exhibited this behavior, in five years of use, until this
>>> last update.
>>
>> I may have at least stumbled upon the problem, and the solution.
>>
>> At some point today there was a strange, graphic remnant of a screen
>> that apparently belongs to a new TB feature called "Test Pilot" that
>> kept showing up, in fragments, a few minutes after the program was
>> opened; the ghostlike fragments of this screen moved with the TB window,
>> but was obviously causing a graphic glitch within the program itself;
>> and although it looked ghostlike, it was active, and the few portions of
>> it that could be seen could be clicked on.
>>
>> This screen was apparently a notification that a report was ready to
>> send to "Test Pilot", and was asking for permission to submit the report.
>>
>> Looking under Tools, I found the Test Pilot "Settings" screen and
>> selected "Always submit my data" (don't ask me).
>>
>> Since doing that one thing, TB has not once hung up again, and runs just
>> as it did in days of yore.
>>
>> Anyone else with this issue may want to check this "Test Pilot" schtick
>> out, or preempt it altogether.
>>
>> YMMV ...
>>
>>
Looks like an addon, though they may be building it into the program.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On 4/3/2012 9:03 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
> No, I did not install it.
>
> It must install when you answer you'd like to help Mozilla.
>
> I don't respond since those usually include some invasive stuff, like
> how you are using it, how often, how often it crashes.
>
> I just log bugs.. I don't like the invasive stuff.
>
> On 4/3/2012 7:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/3/2012 6:11 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>> I don't see a test pilot screen under settings.
>>> Nor do I find it when I search Mozilla (Thunderbird site).
>>>
>>> How do I get to the configuration?
>>
>> Go to Tools|Addons|Extensions and see if "Test Pilot" is there.
>>
>> I do recall seeing "Test Pilot" as included part of FireFox at some
>> point, but I did NOT download the extension for TB, not did I enable it,
>> not did I agree to do so prior to the last update, so it had to have
>> been part of the update and "enabled" by default.
>>
>> Here it is:
>>
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/thunderbird/addon/test-pilot-for-thunderbird/
>>
>>
>>
In one of the recent version, 10?? it was loaded as part of the TB
installation. If disappeared in one of the .0.01 revisions to that
version.

I remember clicking that I did not want it to activate it in the
Options, but when I checked when I saw your post I could not find it.

On 4/3/2012 4:30 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 10:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>> Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
>>> your update?
>>
>> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
>> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
>> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no avail.
>>
>> It has never exhibited this behavior, in five years of use, until this
>> last update.
>
> I may have at least stumbled upon the problem, and the solution.
>
> At some point today there was a strange, graphic remnant of a screen that
> apparently belongs to a new TB feature called "Test Pilot" that kept showing
> up, in fragments, a few minutes after the program was opened; the ghostlike
> fragments of this screen moved with the TB window, but was obviously causing a
> graphic glitch within the program itself; and although it looked ghostlike, it
> was active, and the few portions of it that could be seen could be clicked on.
>
> This screen was apparently a notification that a report was ready to send to
> "Test Pilot", and was asking for permission to submit the report.
>
> Looking under Tools, I found the Test Pilot "Settings" screen and selected
> "Always submit my data" (don't ask me).
>
> Since doing that one thing, TB has not once hung up again, and runs just as it
> did in days of yore.
>
> Anyone else with this issue may want to check this "Test Pilot" schtick out, or
> preempt it altogether.
>
> YMMV ...

I don't remember what release it was (I'm on 11.01 now), but at some point they
certainly slowed the damn thing down considerably during startup. I just
upgraded to a new system running Windows 7 Pro 64-bit, and it's somewhat better
but still not near what it was or should be or used to be. Other than being
annoyingly slow during startup I don't think I'm getting the *exact* behavior
that you are, and I do have the Test Pilot thing enabled, but the problem I
have is that TB simply *crashes* all the time with that annoying "We're sorry"
message. This started happening several releases ago (about the same time the
slow-downs started? Not sure.) I don't know why the thing could be so stable
for so many years then suddenly THIS. Well, maybe I do. As you said, those
dang programmers always have to go dicking with something that isn't broken...
Guilty. :-)

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 3/31/2012 10:04 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 3/31/2012 7:41 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>> jointer,
>> that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a nice
>> crook in the
>> blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering just what in the
>> world is
>> the difference between a $6 one and a $105 starrett? I won't be buying a
>> starrett, so please make suggestions below that brand. <G>
>>
>> thanks!
>
> I have this one:
>
> http://www.grizzly.com/products/4-pc-Combination-Square-12-/G5726
>
> I've had it for probably ten years, and it's worked great for me. Never
> found myself wanting for a Starrett or similar brands that cost $100 more.

1/64th graduations? You must have the eyes of a hawk?

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 3/31/2012 11:16 PM, Roy wrote:

> Get the Starrett. If cost is critical, haunt that big online auction house
> until you can find one for about $25 delivered. I have two pre-owned users in
> my shop and other than a missing scribe, they are perfectly fine. FWIW, I also
> obtained a Brown and Sharp from the bay for less than the Starrett's go for.
> It's cosmetically challenged, but as accurate as a Starrett as far as I can
> tell.
>
> My first Starrett, obtained years ago new, still lives in the plastic bag it
> came in, carefully oiled after each use, is stored in the original box and is
> used as my reference square only.

I use my fathers Lufkin N0.66 12" combo square. It is at minimum 60
years old, could be older. It has been dropped on concrete 1000's of
times by me, probably same for my dad. It lives hanging off two nails
on my table saw bench. I recently, in a fit of tool buying frenzy,
where I often buy unneeded tools for my tools, I bought a Wixey digital
angle gauge. I immediately checked my table saw, jointer fence, BS
table and disk sander table, all of which were set up using my combo
square, and each was within 1/10th of a degree, more accurate than
needed for wood work, and exactly within the accuracy guarantee of the
Wixey digital angle hickey. I always loved my Lufkin because it was my
dads, now I love it also because it is right on the money.

> Money invested in precision is good money. You will get it back in reduced
> wasted wood, wasted time and less frustration. Don't wait as long as I did to
> have this revelation.

Wood work doesn't require the precision of a machine shop. Wood changes
shape just breathing on it, and the pores of some wood is larger than
the accuracy of machine shop measuring devices. I also have one of
those digital calibers that measure stuff to 1/128th of an inch. Works
OK for metal, but for wood, particularly soft wood, I can change more
than 1/28th" just by how tight I wrap it around the wood. That type of
accuracy is not needed in wood work.

That said, you still want a square that is square, and will stay square
w/o saving it it an oiled, in a plastic bag.

Not sure you need to spend $100 on a darn square, but I never bought
one, so can only speculate.

> If your jointer is a Stanley to Type 13 #7 or 8, or a 607/608, you can send it
> to me and I will set it up for you and return it...some day.

My jointer is a Rockwell Delta. When edge jointing for joining two
boards to make a wider board, I don't care, or even want the fence at
90°. One edge face against the fence, adjoining edge away from the
fence. Perfect every time. Same principle used with the Stanely I
believe. Face jointing I rely on the planer to get things parallel, not
the jointer fence. The jointer is the only tool I can think of the
fence is (generally) not a big deal.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:41:44 -0500, Steve Barker<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
>> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
>> starrett? I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions
>> below that brand.<G>
>>
>> thanks!
>

On 4/2/2012 11:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
>> your update?
>
> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no avail.
>
> It has never exhibited this behavior, in five years of use, until this
> last update.

Now you tell me. Not 5 minutes ago I got the TB update message to
11.01. I had been getting it for a few days and this time said OK.
Now, I know next time I load TB, it will be updating me to 11.01, the
one you are using...

TB has been pissing me off since they started updating every other day,
and stupidly update major version numbers every few minutes. Went from
version 3something, which took years to get too, to version 11something,
that took months to get to. I'm losing lots of faith in TB, but
stubborn as I am, I'll probably stay with it until at least a million
people tell me something else is better. Actually, if *you* find
something better, I'd bite.

> FWIW, to any and all shitheads: I'm not the slightest bit intererested
> in the fact that _your_ TB installation somehow works perfectly, so if
> the shoe fits, somehow contain yourself, and STFU.

TB has been acting up one way or another for a good while. The last
update (11) seemed OK, Now I have to look forward to ver 11.01 next
time a load it up. One reason I keep updating is it never seems to work
quite right, so I keep hoping. I think I could have lived with 11.0...

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 16:38:45 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:41:44 -0500, Steve Barker wrote:
>
>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
>> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
>> starrett?
>> I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions below that
>> brand. <G>
>
>Well, I can't complain since I got my Starrett at an estate sale for
>$5 :-). But unless you get lucky, I'd say buy a medium priced combo
>square and get an engineers square for the precision work.
>
>Even this set is accurate to +/-0.00063":
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Groz-SS-2-4-6-US-3-Piece-Engineer/dp/B001DT16PK
>
>Grizzly has a cheaper set but they don't specify accuracy so I'd stay
>away from them.

I like 'em, but I ain't anal about it.

Here are some with an 0.001" accuracy, fine with me:
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=32601&cat=1,42936,42941

--
Life is an escalator:
You can move forward or backward;
you can not remain still.
-- Patricia Russell-McCloud

On 4/5/2012 9:09 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 11:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>> Swingy, are you experiencing major slowdowns, and script crashes with
>>> your update?
>>
>> No script crashes. I'm getting "TB is not responding" messages for at
>> least 15 to 30 seconds each time the program is opened and _after_ it
>> checks mail. I've done all the usual deleting .msf files etc., to no
>> avail.
>>
>> It has never exhibited this behavior, in five years of use, until this
>> last update.
>
> Now you tell me. Not 5 minutes ago I got the TB update message to 11.01.
> I had been getting it for a few days and this time said OK. Now, I know
> next time I load TB, it will be updating me to 11.01, the one you are
> using...
>
> TB has been pissing me off since they started updating every other day,
> and stupidly update major version numbers every few minutes. Went from
> version 3something, which took years to get too, to version 11something,
> that took months to get to. I'm losing lots of faith in TB, but stubborn
> as I am, I'll probably stay with it until at least a million people tell
> me something else is better. Actually, if *you* find something better,
> I'd bite.
>
>> FWIW, to any and all shitheads: I'm not the slightest bit intererested
>> in the fact that _your_ TB installation somehow works perfectly, so if
>> the shoe fits, somehow contain yourself, and STFU.
>
> TB has been acting up one way or another for a good while. The last
> update (11) seemed OK, Now I have to look forward to ver 11.01 next time
> a load it up. One reason I keep updating is it never seems to work quite
> right, so I keep hoping. I think I could have lived with 11.0...

Just don't allow the Test Pilot extension to be loaded and you should be OK.

TB has gotten way too complicated and full of unneeded bells and
whistles, IMO.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

No, I did not install it.

It must install when you answer you'd like to help Mozilla.

I don't respond since those usually include some invasive stuff, like
how you are using it, how often, how often it crashes.

I just log bugs.. I don't like the invasive stuff.

On 4/3/2012 7:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 6:11 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> I don't see a test pilot screen under settings.
>> Nor do I find it when I search Mozilla (Thunderbird site).
>>
>> How do I get to the configuration?
>
> Go to Tools|Addons|Extensions and see if "Test Pilot" is there.
>
> I do recall seeing "Test Pilot" as included part of FireFox at some
> point, but I did NOT download the extension for TB, not did I enable it,
> not did I agree to do so prior to the last update, so it had to have
> been part of the update and "enabled" by default.
>
> Here it is:
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/thunderbird/addon/test-pilot-for-thunderbird/
>
>

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 07:12:53 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> What pencil mark? He asked about the difference between a Starrett
>> and a six-dollar
>> square *specifically* in the context of setting up a jointer.
>
>Point taken.

Sort of; is this a one use tool? . While you may be checking the
fence for square to the table, at other times you may be wanting to do
other tasks with it. I've had cheap combo squares and sliding the
rule is not smooth and that makes it difficult to set accurately.

I have the Starret my FIL used for years. I'd buy one again if I had
to.

On 4/2/2012 1:05 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

> I did respond that my installation works, and have worked through many
> problem with the many version of TB to get it to work like it does
> today.

And, I did not have to work through any problems in the previous five
years of using TB .... until this last update, that is.

> I am sorry that I offended you by offered to help with your
> problem

My remark was not (originally) intended toward you in the slightest,
(but I'm rethinking that).

Besides asking the asinine question of whether I had contacted tech
support, exactly what was your proffered advice/help again?

>when it is obvious you would rather complain that get it fixed.

Horse shit! I _remarked_ on the problem because it has become apparent
that it is not something that a user can fix, except, just maybe, by a
long shot, tired old, bullshit, "re-install" mantra that seems to be the
favorite "fix" for your recommended technical advisers above ... and,
any complaint in that regard requires no justification whatsoever.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Starret sells two heads, hardened and not hardened.

No part of the unhardened is hardened. The primary purpose of the
hardened head is to prevent wear. A machinist would want protection
from dings... or rubbing the head back and forth on a rough surface.




On 4/1/2012 2:31 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
>> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
>> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
>> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
>> starrett? I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions
>> below that brand.<G>
>
> The difference is that the Starrett comes square and stays square. The
> cheapie that my Starrett replaced was square when I got it but a few
> years later it was way off. Aluminum rubbing on steel will do that.
> The Starrett is all steel and some parts are hardened.

I have a very old Starret that I got from a machinist who passed away.
His niece gave it to me for nothing. I was very grateful.

I also have a Browne and Sharpe and an old Stanley. The Starret is a
piece of work. Solid, heavy. The blade moves like it should. The blade
is old, not the non glare type.. wish it were. But it is not stamped
like the Stanley crap. The new Stanleys are etched I believe. But years
ago I read an article in Fine Woodworking and went to check out their
claims of the Stanley being the best buy.. What a crock. Not one of them
was accurate.

The Browne and Sharpe is comparable to the Starret , both are quality
squares and companies. I corrected the Stanley just draw a line
flipped one way then the other and then file the Stanley head (where the
blade sits) until it is parallel or lines up over the other line. You'll
need some fine needle files, I had a square needle file that was square
for its entire length not tapering. It fit that model Stanley.

I use the Stanley for rough work, and where it might get dropped or
hurt. The Starret is my fine work and go to square.

You don't need the Starret, but you need an accurate Combo. So get what
you can afford, just make sure the blade comes out and can be put back
easily. And make sure it can be set square..look to see if you can file
the channel to correct it. You don't want to touch the heads face to
square it. You want to fix the blades bed.




On 3/31/2012 8:41 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> Just found out today, whilst checking my new in box, auction bought
> jointer, that my combination square (gawd knows where i got it) had a
> nice crook in the blade. I'm looking to buy a new one and was wondering
> just what in the world is the difference between a $6 one and a $105
> starrett? I won't be buying a starrett, so please make suggestions below
> that brand. <G>
>
> thanks!
>
>

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:04:42 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:43:26 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Here are some with an 0.001" accuracy, fine with me:
>> http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=32601&cat=1,42936,42941
>
>0.001 vs 0.006 (both per inch) and about the same price for a set of 3 -
>take your pick. But the Lee Valley does sell a single square - I use my
>6" square for almost everything - I've only used the 2" square on model
>RR structures, and best I can remember I've never used the 4" square.
>
>So the OP could get the single 6" square from Lee Valley for $17, which
>he could save from buying a mid-priced combination square.

That's +-0.001" OAL, not per inch, BTW.

--
Life is an escalator:
You can move forward or backward;
you can not remain still.
-- Patricia Russell-McCloud

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:12:09 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Steve Barker <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> thanks for the reply. If i didn't care about square edges, i would have
>> kept on jointing on the table saw. But having said that, i don't
>> believe it takes a hundred dollars to get a square square. <G>.
>>
>No, it doesn't -- but you won't get that with a six-dollar square,either.
You actually might. But if you bought 50 $6 squares, the chance of
all 50 being square would be rather slim. - so when buying a $6 square
you do need to test it before leaving the store. A simple check is ti
check something for square using both sides if the square. If it
checks out dead on with both sides, the square IS square.