Why is my stain not getting as dark as shown in store samples?

In such cases, you may want to
> still quote the bulk of the thread just in case for background context
> but you want to save the reader the PITA of scrolling through it all
> just to read your short, obvious, and context-independent response. Of
> course, the pedantic and obsessive-compulsive may still not concede that
> case...

exactly, they'll just tell you you're wrong and that they're man enough to
admit it.

I put this at the bottom so the pedantic and OC would see it.....

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 07:33:17 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>
>"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:
>>> I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
>>> than I am absolutely crazy.
>>
>> No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Sorry, Kate, but I agree with David's horrible, nasty, ugly, vicious,
hateful, war-mongering response.
(See? Other folks can overreact, too, Lew. ;)


>> But please do whatever you want.

Tolerance is his virtue. I've plonked half the topposters I've read.


>I think the idiot is the one that needs to look through all the mess to get
>to the reply. Basically the one that cannot remember what he just read in
>the immediate above post. Why reread each time if you have any kind of
>memory. Why not for those that can keep up do we need to have the response
>at the bottom?

Why? For it to be a logical response, especially on proper
(bottom-posted, or interstitial if for multiple phrase replies like
this one) responses. It's not as bad when the original post and
answer both fit on the screen but it's still a real bother for a lot
of people. That said, yes, more people should snip their quotes to
only the relevant info. (BTW, topposters never snip anything at all,
adding unnecessary delay to Usenet use for everyone.) <sniffle>


>So to in response to your probable response, If you have not read the whole
>thread or your computer does not show the previous response, read the
>statement below the top posted response.

What about those who don't have time to read the posts every day, or
just started reading the newsgroup?

For those of you who find it hard to bottom-post, get a decent
freakin' _newsreader_, fer chrissake! Usenet isn't rocket science.

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

On Mar 5, 6:48=A0pm, Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote:
> >So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
> >I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?
>
> Sheesh. =A0You and Dave Bugg over in teh BBQ group should meet.
>
> -Zz

NO SHIT!!!

On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:

> Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
> this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
> to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
> of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
> practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.

[snip]

So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

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

*snip*

> The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
> end grain.
>
> What could I possibly be doing wrong?

How old are the store samples? Most woods naturally change over time,
often darkening as they get older.

Puckdropper

--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

On 3/5/2010 2:15 PM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:

> On Mar 5, 12:20 pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:
>>
>>> Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
>>> this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
>>> to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
>>> of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
>>> practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
>> I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?
>
> I'll consider it.

Thank you; that's very considerate of you.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:

> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Geez Kate you sound like fun...
>
> IMHO Posting on bottom for someone else, is simply being submissive. Post
> where you want.
> ============
>
> LMAO Leon!
> I'm a PITA, I swear.
> You're alright in my book!
> I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive than
> I am absolutely crazy.

No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

But please do whatever you want.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

"David Nebenzahl" wrote:

> No, it just makes you look like an idiot.
>
> But please do whatever you want.

--------------------------------------
Vicious personal attack time, huh.

Don't think you want to go there.

Lew

On 3/6/2010 1:33 PM Lew Hodgett spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" wrote:
>
>> No, it just makes you look like an idiot.
>>
>> But please do whatever you want.
>
> Vicious personal attack time, huh.
>
> Don't think you want to go there.

*That's* a vicious attack???? I think someone's insult-o-meter needs
recalibration, and I don't think it's mine ...


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 3/7/2010 9:08 AM Jack Stein spake thus:

> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:
>>
>>> LMAO Leon!
>>> I'm a PITA, I swear.
>>> You're alright in my book!
>>> I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
>>> than I am absolutely crazy.
>
>> No, it just makes you look like an idiot.
>
> Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
> interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct.
> Thinking there is one correct way all the time is lame, and could make
> you look like an idiot. Failure to adequately edit your message using
> common sense always denotes idiocy or slothfulness, or both.

When I say that bottom posting is the way to go (and if you bother to
check you'll see that close to 100% of the participants here, including
yourself, bottom post), I implicitly include judicious trimming as part
of that. It *is* annoying in the extreme to have to scroll through a
hundred lines of previous messages only to get to a 1-line reply at the
bottom.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 3/7/2010 1:03 PM Leon spake thus:

> As is scrolling down through 30 ~ 35 lines of text if a 1-line or one word
> reply is at the bottom and it could have easily been used at the top.

But it puts the whole conversation *out of order*. As in bass-ackwards.

Larry's sig says it best:

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

Unfortunately, we've all been bamboozled into accepting top-posting as
the norm, because that's the way 99% of the corporate world does things
because, I suspect, that's the way Micro$oft products operate out of the
box, and nobody stops for a millisecond to think that there might be a
better way--and because people's attention spans seem to be measured in
milliseconds.

All of which I utterly reject.

But the glaring fact is that if you look through this newsgroup (or
really any newsgroup for that matter), you'll see that most people
bottom-post, going against the grain of corporate (and probably
personal) email standards.

It just makes more sense that way, for reasons that have been
exhaustively explained time and time again.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 3/7/2010 5:46 PM Leon spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> It just makes more sense that way, for reasons that have been exhaustively
>> explained time and time again.
>
> To each his own David.

Then why are you bottom-posting?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 3/7/2010 6:33 PM Joe spake thus:

>> In such cases, you may want to still quote the bulk of the thread
>> just in case for background context but you want to save the reader
>> the PITA of scrolling through it all just to read your short,
>> obvious, and context-independent response. Of course, the pedantic
>> and obsessive-compulsive may still not concede that case...
>
> exactly, they'll just tell you you're wrong and that they're man enough to
> admit it.
>
> I put this at the bottom so the pedantic and OC would see it.....

You know, you completely miss the intent of my sig. No skin off my back;
your loss, not mine.

(Hint: I did not say this.)


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

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

*snip*

>
> For those of you who find it hard to bottom-post, get a decent
> freakin' _newsreader_, fer chrissake! Usenet isn't rocket science.

I set my newsreader to show the quoted text in a smaller font than the new
text, and often use its skip to next lower unquoted paragraph feature. The
whole top, middle, or bottom thing doesn't bother me; my newsreader takes
care of it.

Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

On 3/8/2010 5:33 AM Kate spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> No, it just makes you look like an idiot.
>>
>> But please do whatever you want.

[your reply invisible]

Well, Kate, here you made a technical error; you started your reply
below my sig delimiter (that "--" down there), so it became invisible in
my reply (this message) since proper news clients clip out the previous
sig in a message being replied to. Prolly because you're using Micro$oft
Outlook Express (ver. 6.00.2900.5843 to be exact), which is notoriously
bad at handling Usenet conventions like sigs, quoting, etc.

But regarding your other comment: yeah, I have no problem with your version:

"You were wrong, and I'm woman enough to admit it."


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.

A few ideas.

1. Learn how to use Dyes. A very very different process but much more
predictable once you learn the tricks.
2. Try some water based stains. I find the General Finishes water
based stains to have a whole lot of grit and good color lay down. But
using water based requures the extra step of raising the grain.
3. Gel stains are oil stains that have some jellified nature and poly
included. These can be much more easily used as a coating where you
can leave a film to get the deep color you want.

One approach I use on oak (and others) is a standard oil stain on the
raw wood or tung oiled, then stained. Then I put down a thin coat of
shellac. Then I use a darker gel stain to fill the grain with nice
dark lines but not filled so they are flat. You can work the gel stain
with a real saturated rag and leave behind a film as dark as you like.
I actually use it to antique the look and leave lots more in the
corners. The gel stain has poly in it so it will dry and stay on the
surface better than doing the same leave behind with standard oil
stain.

You can then lacquer over or poly over or shellac over or wax over or
my fav lacquer then wax over or just leave it. I also sometimes use
black wax for even more antiquing sometimes.

On Mar 5, 10:00=A0am, blueman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
> sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
> get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.
>
> - I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
> =A0 =A0with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dens=
e,
> =A0 =A0rich as shonw in the samples.
>
> - For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
> =A0 of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.
>
> - It happens both on unsanded S4S wood and on wood sanded to 200 grit
>
> - Also it happens whether or not I use a pre-stain wood conditioner.
>
> - Finally it happens even with multiple coates (4+), even when using
> =A0 very generous applications, even when kept on longer than recommended=
,
> =A0 and even if I don't wipe it off aggresively at the end.
>
> The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
> end grain.
>
> What could I possibly be doing wrong?

On Mar 5, 1:00=A0pm, blueman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
> sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
> get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.
>
> - I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
> =A0 =A0with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dens=
e,
> =A0 =A0rich as shonw in the samples.
>
> - For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
> =A0 of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.
>
> - It happens both on unsanded S4S wood and on wood sanded to 200 grit
>
> - Also it happens whether or not I use a pre-stain wood conditioner.
>
> - Finally it happens even with multiple coates (4+), even when using
> =A0 very generous applications, even when kept on longer than recommended=
,
> =A0 and even if I don't wipe it off aggresively at the end.
>
> The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
> end grain.
>
> What could I possibly be doing wrong?

Try using a dye. There are water/alcohol soluble dyes available at
Woodcraft. Try TransTint (this is what I use).
The stains that you are using are made from pigments that don't
penetrate hard wood very well (large molecules). Dyes are much
smaller compounds (usually analine derivatives) that penetrate the
pours of hardwood much better.

Try it.

"blueman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
> sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
> get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.
>
> - I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
> with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dense,
> rich as shonw in the samples.
>
> - For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
> of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.
>
> - It happens both on unsanded S4S wood and on wood sanded to 200 grit
>
> - Also it happens whether or not I use a pre-stain wood conditioner.
>
> - Finally it happens even with multiple coates (4+), even when using
> very generous applications, even when kept on longer than recommended,
> and even if I don't wipe it off aggresively at the end.
>
> The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
> end grain.
>
> What could I possibly be doing wrong?

The two main reasons have both been mentioned.

Sanding to too fine a grit which doesn't allow the pigment any rough surface
to settle into.

However, given how long most store displays have been out, my $$ is on the
wood darkening over time, something all woods do, to greatly varying
degrees.

jc

"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8c46e07f-ddc3-44df-b675-aac714033cd2@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 5, 4:40 pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> blueman <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
> *snip*
>
> > The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
> > end grain.
>
> > What could I possibly be doing wrong?
>
> How old are the store samples? Most woods naturally change over time,
> often darkening as they get older.

And at the same time, stain has a tendency to fade over time. Hmmmm.

I have not noticed that unless of course the piece is subject to fading due
to lighting conditions. I have been using a particular stain for 20 years
and it continues to match pieces done 20 years ago. In 1995 I built an
entertainment system for a customer and in 2007 had to modify it and add
drawers, the customer mentioned that it all looked like it was built at the
same time.

On Mar 5, 4:40=A0pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> blueman <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]=
:
>
> *snip*
>
> > The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
> > end grain.
>
> > What could I possibly be doing wrong?
>
> How old are the store samples? =A0Most woods naturally change over time,
> often darkening as they get older.

And at the same time, stain has a tendency to fade over time. Hmmmm.


>
> Puckdropper
>
> --
> Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

>So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
>I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?

Sheesh. You and Dave Bugg over in teh BBQ group should meet.

-Zz

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Nebenzahl" wrote:
>
>> No, it just makes you look like an idiot.
>>
>> But please do whatever you want.
>
> --------------------------------------
> Vicious personal attack time, huh.
>
> Don't think you want to go there.
>
> Lew
>
>
>

Vicious personal attack = plonk, at least in my book.

"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:
>
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> Geez Kate you sound like fun...
>>
>> IMHO Posting on bottom for someone else, is simply being submissive.
>> Post
>> where you want.
>> ============
>>
>> LMAO Leon!
>> I'm a PITA, I swear.
>> You're alright in my book!
>> I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
>> than I am absolutely crazy.
>
> No, it just makes you look like an idiot.
>
> But please do whatever you want.

I think the idiot is the one that needs to look through all the mess to get
to the reply. Basically the one that cannot remember what he just read in
the immediate above post. Why reread each time if you have any kind of
memory. Why not for those that can keep up do we need to have the response
at the bottom?

So to in response to your probable response, If you have not read the whole
thread or your computer does not show the previous response, read the
statement below the top posted response.

"blueman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
> sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
> get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.
>
> - I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
> with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dense,
> rich as shonw in the samples.
>
> - For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
> of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.
>
> - It happens both on unsanded S4S wood and on wood sanded to 200 grit
>
> - Also it happens whether or not I use a pre-stain wood conditioner.
>
> - Finally it happens even with multiple coates (4+), even when using
> very generous applications, even when kept on longer than recommended,
> and even if I don't wipe it off aggresively at the end.
>
> The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
> end grain.
>
> What could I possibly be doing wrong?

You could, probably are over sanding. If you are going past 180 you may be
leaving little for the stain to soak into.

"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> It just makes more sense that way, for reasons that have been exhaustively
> explained time and time again.

To each his own David.

As is scrolling down through 30 ~ 35 lines of text if a 1-line or one word
reply is at the bottom and it could have easily been used at the top.


"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/7/2010 9:08 AM Jack Stein spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> >
>>> On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:
>>>
>>>> LMAO Leon!
>>>> I'm a PITA, I swear.
>>>> You're alright in my book!
>>>> I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
>>>> than I am absolutely crazy.
>>
>>> No, it just makes you look like an idiot.
>>
>> Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
>> interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct. Thinking
>> there is one correct way all the time is lame, and could make you look
>> like an idiot. Failure to adequately edit your message using common
>> sense always denotes idiocy or slothfulness, or both.
>
> When I say that bottom posting is the way to go (and if you bother to
> check you'll see that close to 100% of the participants here, including
> yourself, bottom post), I implicitly include judicious trimming as part of
> that. It *is* annoying in the extreme to have to scroll through a hundred
> lines of previous messages only to get to a 1-line reply at the bottom.
>
>
> --
> You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
>
> - a Usenet "apology"

"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/7/2010 5:46 PM Leon spake thus:
>
>> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> It just makes more sense that way, for reasons that have been
>>> exhaustively explained time and time again.
>>
>> To each his own David.
>
> Then why are you bottom-posting?

I'm flexable.... ;~) I do not "totally" disagree with your comments on
bottom posting, but sometimes it makes more sense to top post or to simply
post the reply and snip every thing else.

Your sig line perfectly matches your inability to deal with trivialities.

Happily hanging out up here with Sonoma. How ya doin?

"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:
>
>> Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
>> this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
>> to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
>> of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
>> practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.
>
> [snip]
>
> So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh, I
> don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?
>
>
> --
> You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
>
> - a Usenet "apology"

On Mar 5, 12:20=A0pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:
>
> > Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
> > this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
> > to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
> > of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
> > practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.
>
> [snip]
>
> So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
> I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?
>
> --
> You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
>
> - a Usenet "apology"

I'll consider it.

blueman <[email protected]> wrote:

: What could I possibly be doing wrong?

Are you putting on a top clear coat (varnish, shellac, lacquer, etc.)?
Dyes (which, in spite of the syte/stain distinction, are in a lot of thing
labelled "stain") only show their true color and darkness once a topcoat
is applied. This is most extreme with aniline dyes, but it might be
happening in your case as well.

-- Andy Barss

I like your style Joe!

Some of us just like being on top I guess ;-D

K.

"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Your sig line perfectly matches your inability to deal with trivialities.

Happily hanging out up here with Sonoma. How ya doin?

"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:
>
>> Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
>> this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
>> to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
>> of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
>> practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.
>
> [snip]
>
> So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh, I
> don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?
>
>
> --
> You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
>
> - a Usenet "apology"

blueman wrote:
> Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
> sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
> get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.
>
> - I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
> with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dense,
> rich as shonw in the samples.
>
> - For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
> of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.

For the oak, try Watco Danish Oil, dark walnut. It will definitely
stain your oak dark. I built a kitchen out of white oak a long time ago
and
I was having a hard time getting it dark. Never had much of a problem
with pine however, and I really didn't like the Watco on pine. Really
good on Oak, both red and white.

--
Jack
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-- Thomas Jefferson
http://jbstein.com

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Geez Kate you sound like fun...

IMHO Posting on bottom for someone else, is simply being submissive. Post
where you want.
============

LMAO Leon!
I'm a PITA, I swear.
You're alright in my book!
I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive than
I am absolutely crazy.

K.


"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I like your style Joe!
>
> Some of us just like being on top I guess ;-D
>
> K.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:

>> LMAO Leon!
>> I'm a PITA, I swear.
>> You're alright in my book!
>> I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
>> than I am absolutely crazy.

> No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct.
Thinking there is one correct way all the time is lame, and could make
you look like an idiot. Failure to adequately edit your message using
common sense always denotes idiocy or slothfulness, or both.

--
Jack
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-- Thomas Jefferson
http://jbstein.com

"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote
No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

But please do whatever you want.


--
Thank you, I most certainly will!
Not that I needed your permission.

Interestingly enough, your sig line is completely appropriate in this
instance, with one minor adjustment.

"You were wrong, and I'm WOman enough to admit it."

- a Usenet "apology"

Joe wrote:

> What I've not missed is your insistence that a diverse group of people with
> a common interest all throw away their individual preferences and behave in
> a homogenized manner to accomodate what you believe to be the best, whether
> or not they believe it to be the best. My refusal to bend to your will is
> *not* my loss.

So, you're an anarchist rather than a totalitarian. I can live with
that. Much better than being a totalitarian socialist bastard!

> Have a wonderful day (if you want to, if not, have whatever kind of day you
> prefer),

Still, I prefer you don't toss your bones on the floor after eating at
my table with your hands... A little etiquette can be a good thing, no?

--
Jack
An armed society is a polite society.
http://jbstein.com

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 3/7/2010 9:08 AM Jack Stein spake thus:

>> Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
>> interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct.

> When I say that bottom posting is the way to go (and if you bother to
> check you'll see that close to 100% of the participants here, including
> yourself, bottom post), I implicitly include judicious trimming as part
> of that. It *is* annoying in the extreme to have to scroll through a
> hundred lines of previous messages only to get to a 1-line reply at the
> bottom.

Can't argue with that. Also hard to find a good reason to top post, but
they do exist I reckon. Unless you are afraid the original message was
not read, there is about no reason to top post, other than laziness (too
lazy or dumb to edit).

--
Jack
Obama Care...Freedom not Included!
http://jbstein.com

On 3/08/10 9:53 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 3/7/2010 9:08 AM Jack Stein spake thus:
>
>>> Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
>>> interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct.
>
>> When I say that bottom posting is the way to go (and if you bother to
>> check you'll see that close to 100% of the participants here,
>> including yourself, bottom post), I implicitly include judicious
>> trimming as part of that. It *is* annoying in the extreme to have to
>> scroll through a hundred lines of previous messages only to get to a
>> 1-line reply at the bottom.
>
> Can't argue with that. Also hard to find a good reason to top post, but
> they do exist I reckon. Unless you are afraid the original message was
> not read, there is about no reason to top post, other than laziness (too
> lazy or dumb to edit).
>
Usually it is a broken/misprogrammed Usenet client, or not selecting the
option to put the cursor at the bottom of the previous message, if it
exists.

I am sure they are not scrolling to the top to be annoying.
--
Froz...


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

Joe wrote:
>>> What I've not missed is your insistence that a diverse group of people
>>> with a common interest all throw away their individual preferences and behave
>>> in a homogenized manner to accomodate what you believe to be the best,
>>> whether or not they believe it to be the best. My refusal to bend to
>>> your will is *not* my loss.

>> So, you're an anarchist rather than a totalitarian. I can live with that.
>> Much better than being a totalitarian socialist bastard!
>>
>>> Have a wonderful day (if you want to, if not, have whatever kind of day
>>> you prefer),

> I'm neither. not every opinion someone has delineates them politically.

Perhaps, but, considering your strong defense of individual preferences
rather than group preferences from the above exchange, it follows
logically that you would be on the individual freedom (right) side of
the political spectrum than the socialist, government control (left)
side of the political spectrum.

The anarchist vs totalitarian comment was meant to to be more whimsical
and indicate my personal political position rather than yours.

--
Jack
The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
http://jbstein.com

>> What I've not missed is your insistence that a diverse group of people
>> with
>> a common interest all throw away their individual preferences and behave
>> in a homogenized manner to accomodate what you believe to be the best,
>> whether or not they believe it to be the best. My refusal to bend to
>> your will is *not* my loss.
>
> So, you're an anarchist rather than a totalitarian. I can live with that.
> Much better than being a totalitarian socialist bastard!
>
>> Have a wonderful day (if you want to, if not, have whatever kind of day
>> you prefer),
>
> Still, I prefer you don't toss your bones on the floor after eating at my
> table with your hands... A little etiquette can be a good thing, no?
>
> --
> Jack
> An armed society is a polite society.
> http://jbstein.com

I'm neither. not every opinion someone has delineates them politically.

How has this thread gone on so long without fulfilling Godwin's law is
beyond me, but I'm done.

Geez Kate you sound like fun...

IMHO Posting on bottom for someone else, is simply being submissive. Post
where you want.




"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I like your style Joe!
>
> Some of us just like being on top I guess ;-D
>
> K.

David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> writes:
> On 3/7/2010 1:03 PM Leon spake thus:
>
>> As is scrolling down through 30 ~ 35 lines of text if a 1-line or
>> one word reply is at the bottom and it could have easily been used
>> at the top.
>
> But it puts the whole conversation *out of order*. As in bass-ackwards.
>
> Larry's sig says it best:
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
>
> Unfortunately, we've all been bamboozled into accepting top-posting as
> the norm, because that's the way 99% of the corporate world does
> things because, I suspect, that's the way Micro$oft products operate
> out of the box, and nobody stops for a millisecond to think that there
> might be a better way--and because people's attention spans seem to be
> measured in milliseconds.
>
That's a good point. In fact, when corresponding in the "business"
(non-tech) world, I almost always top-post because I am convinced that
most of my colleagues and correspondants would not realize that there is
a new response beneath the quoted text; rather, most would probably
assume that I mistakenly hit reply before adding my own response and not
bother to scroll down to check. Sad but true...

That being said, I think top-posting sometimes is OK when you have a
short response or meta-content that addresses the entire thread and is
not so complicated that one needs to be intimately familiar with the
sequential development of the thread. In such cases, you may want to
still quote the bulk of the thread just in case for background context
but you want to save the reader the PITA of scrolling through it all
just to read your short, obvious, and context-independent response. Of
course, the pedantic and obsessive-compulsive may still not concede that
case...

>
> You know, you completely miss the intent of my sig. No skin off my back;
> your loss, not mine.
>
> (Hint: I did not say this.)
>

What I've not missed is your insistence that a diverse group of people with
a common interest all throw away their individual preferences and behave in
a homogenized manner to accomodate what you believe to be the best, whether
or not they believe it to be the best. My refusal to bend to your will is
*not* my loss.

Have a wonderful day (if you want to, if not, have whatever kind of day you
prefer),

jc

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:29:55 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:8c46e07f-ddc3-44df-b675-aac714033cd2@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 5, 4:40 pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>> blueman <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> > The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
>> > end grain.
>>
>> > What could I possibly be doing wrong?
>>
>> How old are the store samples? Most woods naturally change over time,
>> often darkening as they get older.
>
>And at the same time, stain has a tendency to fade over time. Hmmmm.
>
>I have not noticed that unless of course the piece is subject to fading due
>to lighting conditions.
[...snip...]

Dye fades more than pigment...so are we talking apples or oranges.

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

>
>>I think the idiot is the one that needs to look through all the mess to
>>get
>>to the reply. Basically the one that cannot remember what he just read in
>>the immediate above post. Why reread each time if you have any kind of
>>memory. Why not for those that can keep up do we need to have the
>>response
>>at the bottom?
>
> Why? For it to be a logical response, especially on proper
> (bottom-posted, or interstitial if for multiple phrase replies like
> this one) responses. It's not as bad when the original post and
> answer both fit on the screen but it's still a real bother for a lot
> of people. That said, yes, more people should snip their quotes to
> only the relevant info. (BTW, topposters never snip anything at all,
> adding unnecessary delay to Usenet use for everyone.) <sniffle>


You have a point there. However I try to remember to snip everything and
simply post a response, it naturally ends up at the top. :~)