Originally Posted by
rpenmanparker
All well and good, and what you are saying sounds okay in those words. But what about saying it another way, that you don't make mistakes? It doesn't sound so good when translated that way..
Let me see if I can clear up some of the confusion and conflict with an anology.
Imaging that you're a teamster who has to run a team and wagon on a narrow road and because the edges are bad must be very careful to keep the wagon from running off either edge.
So you can hire a pair of big burly men to run along either side and nudge the wheels over whenever they drift to either side. Or you can steer the horses down the center with full confidence that the wagon will follow.
If you're a good teamster who knows how to control a team, you'll do the latter. But if you're less experienced with horses, you might need the security of the two safeties.
As for the reference to JB's book, many of us were building for years before it came out, and had the benefit of a century of experienced passed down. Others, who learned from a book might have become dependent on his approach, and never learned other techniques or developed the skills to build without the additional tools.
Originally Posted by
rpenmanparker
...In my opinion the lack of instrumental quality control and assurance applied to every wheel you work on is inexcusable. .
That's downright insulting.
By extension, you'd claim that a skilled cabinet maker cannot turn out good work without the latest in tools and machinery. Or would have a house painter tell Mr. DeVinci how it's done. In any case, let me return the insult (with apology) by suggesting that you don't have the credentials for your opinion on this to matter.