Member postings for Gone Away

I agree and I didn't mean to suggest that. It would be unnecessary and a waste of space.

The only thing I disagree with is the term "thumbnail". IMO, the very first picture(s) should be decent size illustrations of the finished project to orient the reader and help explain what it is all about (not all projects are obvious from their title).

Too often, the pics of the finished item are shown last in the write-up (sometimes after an extended series of articles) and the reader is left floundering until he gets there. Or worse, no finished pics are shown at all.

(I'm not addressing this specifically at ME/MEW .... there are worse culprits.).

Hmm... Is Bee Gees really a hard G as in Guarantee?

Mine is called "OnMark" made in California - I've had it best part of 15 years. I use the DRO method on the mill when convenient but if I want to do it by hand with any accuracy I lay out, using a vernier height gauge where I can, followed by the optical punch (light tap) then recheck optically. Finally a regular centre puch. Always been spot on as far as I can tell.

The comment on parallax is interesting. My optical punch can be used like a microscrope .... that is you can put your eye close to the magnifier, which is what I always do and I don't have a parallax problem. I've seen others since where you couldn't do that (the eye needed to be a foot or more away) and when I expressed surprise was told that that's how these devices normally work. I have one of these other types but never use it - I find it difficult.

Yes, it should - but it's worked the way Russ described from day one. It was pointed out in the forums soon after the site started up so I wouldn't hold your breath ...

I hardly notice any more. I just click on the "most recent" link and then click on "last" without thinking.

Edited By Sid Herbage on 31/05/2012 22:31:33

(Geez I wish this editor would let you insert inline comments)

(Edit: come to think of it it probably does you are prepared to quote-and-edit multiple times)

Fair enough on that first link but I don't see why you would expect to get anything sensible from the onward link from there with a PC. It's obviously designed and encoded for tablets and if you try with anything else you're detected as "not tablet" and shunted off to a "page unavailable" screen. No surprise there.

More problematic is the fact that, as you say, it won't work for Android 2 (2.6.32.9 in my case). I tried it and got the same result as you. It would appear not to be set to recognise that Android flavour and therefore detects it as "not tablet" with the expected result. It should either (preferably) be made to work for all releases of Android or the exceptions should be clearly stated to avoid wasting people's time.

I know it works (or did some weeks ago) for iPad (2) because I tried that on mine.

(First time I've used the Android in ages .... I'm with David C on that one )

Edited By Sid Herbage on 29/05/2012 22:33:15

US (North America actually) terminology is probably best illustrated by the entry in Machinery's Handbook .... there are differences from both David's and Len's definitions. For instance, "Top Rake" is called "Back Rake" and "Side Relief" is what in David's illustration is called "Side Clearance".

I have the 28th Edition of MH (desk edition now to go with the eyesight). However, I also have the facsimile copy of the original (1914) edition which uses such terms as "back slope" and "side slope"

Which is why the arrangement in the earlier web software - which allowed use of the writer's local browser spell checker - was preferred by many. You just obtained the language plug-in of choice and what training needed to be done worked on all websites.

My understanding of the spell checker here is that it saves any personal spelling preferences as a local cookie. Better not follow any internet advice that suggests deleting all cookies as a means of solving various problems (not very good advice anyway actually).

I've turned it off here (as I'm sure will be apparent in some of my posts). I believe a few others have too.

Tell me that was intentional

For sure not. Walking into the embassy and asking them for some lipstick might get some very strange looks - to say the least

Unfortunately, "big and heavy" tend to go along with solid and stiff. I had a Chinese minilathe for some years and most of the deficiencies of the ilk can be addressed with some effort in tuning, adjusting and a bit of re-design. The lack of stiffness however was a constant scourge.

Then I latched on to a Myford ML7 (in rather worse shape than Tony Jefree's Cowells in the latest MEW). Since my health doesn't permit me to manhandle something like that it was delivered to me in a car by two, actually quite elderly, gentlemen who got it into my garage. It was then moved into my workshop (through the house down the stairs - with right angle turn - and into the basement by the son of a friend and his friend (with all the strength of youth). Took them at most 15 minutes. The motor was missing and we took off the obvious things ... tailstock, chuck but complete otherwise.

I spent a winter restoring it and frankly there is no comparison with the minilathe (except perhaps the headstock bore). The minilathe is now gone.

By all means avoid the "big and heavy" if that's what you wish but realise that there is a price.

No, it means the web design has been done to suit a specific browser rather than generically to suit all the major ones.

Has anyone noticed that the one here (eBay item # 190681453008) for £150,200.00 (when I checked - 69 bids) is actually for a photograph of an Olympic Torch?

Edited By Sid Herbage on 21/05/2012 01:37:34

More correctly, the people actually responsible for those activities will have a lot of unhappy readers. (Or of course, they may be forced to climb out of the woodwork and actually start performing).

Many people would be most willing to contact the responsible parties directly (instead of working through you) if only they knew who to contact .... that's usually the problem.

David, you keep asking these (presumably rhetorical) "how can I ...." questions and frankly my reaction is "I don't know ..... but then I'm not an Editor".

I would have thought that managing article submissions including basic acknowlegments/communications was fairly and squarely part of an Editor's function. More so, say, than sorting out readers' subscription problems and other such "off-topic" things - much as we all appreciate the help that you give us. I think Norman is right that you are badly served by your masters. (I don't suppose there's any chance that they soil their eyes by readinng these forums? )

I do know that in the unlikely event that I felt able to produce a screed worthy of publication I would be very loath to submit it into a bottomless pit where, by the act of submission, I apparentl;y give MHS exclusive rights to print it while MHS can take their own sweet time in deciding whether to do so - and keep me completely in the dark in the meantime.

The whole "system" seems slightly weird to me.

If a person submits an article for publication, there is presumably an implied onus on him not to submit it to another publication also. If he receives a negative response that would release him and allow him to submit elsewhere. Surely, if he receives no acceptance (or no response at all) within a reasonable time he is likewise free of that onus.

Since "no response" apparently also means it may get published at some point, it seems possible that he would, by that time, have submitted it to another magazine and the same articles might be published concurrently..

Maybe a bit far-fetched, I don't know, but surely any magazine would want to avoid such a situation by making claim to the article as soon as possible if they intend to publish?

I don't mean to be provocative with this but given the relatively low-cost of small, imported granite surface plates, why do people go to so much effort to find substitutes?

I have one 12" x 9' x 2" which is adequate for everything I do and cost me less than a number of my cutting tools. It's (relatively) light and not only is it way within my needs for flatness, the faces are also parallel. So I can lug it onto the mill table to give me a decent flat surface for alignment checks. It can be a little cramped on some jobs but it's never stopped me doing anything.

I just checked and my local (Canada) supplier isn't listing this one any more - although I know it's still available from other sources. They are selling instead, one that is 18" x 12" x 3" for $40. So I guess the smaller one would be worth around $25 at that rate.

Hi Terry,

It wasn't actually inverted commas that was the problem - it was the closing bracket (parenthesis strictly). Does it work for that too?

Like this:

(Test 1)

(Test 2 )

.........

(Edit)

Oh ... well now I am confused. Apparently it was the quote (inverted commas) that was the problem as you said but the smiley replaced the parenthesis so I figured it was the problem.

Anyway, now I know.... I suggest this isn't continued. I don't want to hijack the original topic.

Edited By Sid Herbage on 17/05/2012 14:24:48

I had a despatch confirmation on May 4 ("despatched today".

I had another one on May 14 ("despatched today".

Since I'm in Canada I don't expect it for some days .... hope they haven't sent two copies.

(UK postal service must be very efficient - notwithstanding the cost - if you can expect it to arrive within 2 days. Around here, I'd only start to get antsy after 4 - 5 days for local mail. Probably more than that from the extremes of the country)

Edit:

Oh that stoopid, stoopid smiley-bracket. Can't someone fix that? I know I'm not the first to complain by a long chalk.

Edited By Sid Herbage on 17/05/2012 02:07:17

SDP/SI sell stainless steel rod among other things and apparently are represented in the UK.