rorynidaho

Cheating is only possible when there are rules restricting operations, thus we can not be cheating when working in our shops/garages/basements/etc. Similar to some saying using motorized methods are cheating and that only hand tools are allowed. They are ignoring the fact that our "forefathers" where using the best technology at their disposal. They would be doing the same today - they were very practical as are most of us. Unless you impose rules upon yourself there can be no cheating - ENJOY !!!!

Sound is a Saw-Stop brake engaging.

No VIDEO???? Your kidding, right. Your magazine is top-shelf, but you are SERIOUSLY dropping the ball on this. Good news, you can add video to correct this faux-podcast.

We seek to validate ourselves through our beliefs (Democrat or Republican, Ford or Chevy, Import or Domestic...) by stating our way is THE way. Our pride refusing to allow another his or her own point of view. If they don't see this as I do, they are wrong because I am right.. aren't I? Let's give to the other the same freedom to choose as we have, without all the commentary. Tools are just that, tools. It really is just that simple.

Looks like the place to be (and the people to be there with)! Oh, yeah.

I need DoveTail HELP - you can send it to me :-)

Very Nice! YES! include this in our magazine. Perhaps use a block of wood with a slot cut through it attached to the miter gauge that the stock passes through that would keep the fingers away from the blade (that is how I am going to set it up and USE IT). That way if you slip during the sliding process your fingers, or mine, will simply hit the block of wood, not the blade. Simple, but very effective. Then, reclamp the block of wood after turning it 90 degrees to cut the sides of the tenons, or make two blocks.
As to all the chatter about using the sides of the blade, it is no different than cutting a cove on the tablesaw using the sides of the blade. As long as you don't hog it off, no harm, no foul.
Thanks for the good tip! Rory

This question began for me by: "eLetter: Ever rip-off a design?" The bias of FWW's editor is plain - "rip-off."

If public domain is not public what is it. Instead of putting the ownus on the readers, shouldn't the publisher state any restrictions with the article, if any? Prior to this question being posed, did any reader question whether the product they paid for wasn't open to use as they see fit? I did not.

If I was in the writer's shoes I would assume that my offering was being placed into the public domain unless I stated otherwise. As someone else has said, why publish if you don't expect people to use it? The publisher is certainly making money off of these articles, why would anyone think it wrong for the purchaser to do the same?

I am all in favor of morals and standards equitably applied. This smells like nothing more than the publisher's attempt to create guilty consciences among their paying customers. Stick to woodworking, and in the future make any "legal issues" clear in the articles or don't play this game.