I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with this
statement,
"So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into the
design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop equivalent
of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."
That may be a clue.
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1
On Apr 1, 3:42 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with this
> statement,
>
> "So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into the
> design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop equivalent
> of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."
>
> That may be a clue.
>
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1
LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
"Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.
I always look forward to what Robin and his mirthmakers dreamt up on
April 1.
On Apr 1, 3:42 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with this
> statement,
>
> "So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into the
> design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop equivalent
> of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."
>
> That may be a clue.
>
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1
This made me chortle:
"Once you've lapped your chisels and blades to a common thickness (a
trivial one-time exercise),"
Sure, it's a straightforward task that you only have to do once...for
about a month straight!
R
Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
-- should me the MK.XLII
It has a probability ranking of 0.75, and is about as attractive as
the fjords of Norway.
On Apr 4, 8:41 am, "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 3:42 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with this
> > statement,
>
> > "So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into the
> > design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop equivalent
> > of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."
>
> > That may be a clue.
>
> >http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1
>
> This made me chortle:
> "Once you've lapped your chisels and blades to a common thickness (a
> trivial one-time exercise),"
> Sure, it's a straightforward task that you only have to do once...for
> about a month straight!
>
> R
B A R R Y wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2007 13:26:45 -0700, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
>> "Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.
>
> But that would be highly improbable.
>
>
At the edge of the universe all things are equally improbable.
--
http://nmwoodworks.com/cube
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000730-1, 04/02/2007
Tested on: 4/3/2007 3:09:02 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
"Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> : "LarryLev" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> :>Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
>> :>-- should me the MK.XLII
>> :>
>> : They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
>> : :P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman
>> numerals,
>> : :but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually ... both notations are as correct as the other. The substractive
>> notation (IX instead of VIIII, for example) got accepted very late
>> in the game. And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the
>> 20th century.
>>
>>
>> -- Andy Barss
>
>When you consider that there were many times being chiseled in granite an
>"XI" is a helluva lot easier to chisel than a "VIIII"
>
>Just some food for thought -
Or even IX if you didn't want to wait a couple of years! <g>
But the notion that Roman numeral use is not carved in stone (if
you'll pardon the pun) but still evolving into the XXth century is
strange.
>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 21:17:17 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
> And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the 20th century.
Non-subtractive is still standard for clockfaces (for IIII) even in the
21st century. I believe this is owing to Henry VIII, and the clock at
Hampton Court
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
> : "LarryLev" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> :>Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
> :>-- should me the MK.XLII
> :>
> : They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
> : :P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman
> numerals,
> : :but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!
>
>
>
> Actually ... both notations are as correct as the other. The substractive
> notation (IX instead of VIIII, for example) got accepted very late
> in the game. And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the
> 20th century.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
When you consider that there were many times being chiseled in granite an
"XI" is a helluva lot easier to chisel than a "VIIII"
Just some food for thought -
"LarryLev" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
>-- should me the MK.XLII
>
They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
:P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman numerals,
:but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
On 1 Apr 2007 13:26:45 -0700, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
>"Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.
>
Yup... 42!
Lee Michaels wrote:
> I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with
> this statement,
>
> "So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought
> into the design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the
> shop equivalent of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and
> Everything."
>
> That may be a clue.
>
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1
Just click the order button and see what comes up.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
: "LarryLev" <[email protected]> wrote:
:>Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
:>-- should me the MK.XLII
:>
: They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
: :P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman numerals,
: :but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!
Actually ... both notations are as correct as the other. The substractive
notation (IX instead of VIIII, for example) got accepted very late
in the game. And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the
20th century.
-- Andy Barss
Recalling my 4th grade math class, when using Roman numerals, the rule is no
more that 3 of a given character, thus 4 is IV and not IIII. As far as I
personally know, the rule never changed. Just because someone in the 20th
century used it, doesn't mean it's correct. So 42 can accurately only be
written as XLII since XXXXII exceeds the 3 character rule.
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
> : "LarryLev" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> :>Just to be annoying, let me point out that the model -- more correctly
> :>-- should me the MK.XLII
> :>
> : They beat you to it. From the "more information" page:
> : :P.S. We know that 42 would correctly be written "XLII" in Roman
> numerals,
> : :but thought that "XXXXII" just worked better in this case...!
>
>
>
> Actually ... both notations are as correct as the other. The substractive
> notation (IX instead of VIIII, for example) got accepted very late
> in the game. And the non-subtractive got used occasionally even into the
> 20th century.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 03:09:01 -0400, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]>
wrote:
>At the edge of the universe all things are equally improbable.
Kolmogorov's zero-one law (yes, look it up) says that they're not. As
most "things" (including breakfast at Milliways) would thus qualify as
"tail events" for Kolmogorov, they're instead either almost certain, or
almost impossible (i.e. their probability is either zero or one, but not
intermediate).
Sadly it's often possible to apply this law, but rarely to tell just
which probability they have.
On 1 Apr 2007 13:26:45 -0700, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
>"Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.
But that would be highly improbable.
Good catch on the Douglas Adams reference. I missed it the first time around
myself.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 1, 3:42 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I am sorry, I can't tell. But the product description concludes with
>> this
>> statement,
>>
>> "So why call it the Mk.XXXXII? Well - we put a lot of deep thought into
>> the
>> design, and what else could we call a jig that's clearly the shop
>> equivalent
>> of the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."
>>
>> That may be a clue.
>>
>> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?p=56737&c=1
>
> LOL.. certainly a funny Douglas Adams reference.
> "Expertly Made In Magrathea" would have been another nice addition.
>
> I always look forward to what Robin and his mirthmakers dreamt up on
> April 1.
>