The Code of Practice

Well that's interesting. It seems that one of the immutable Laws of Shed Physics also applies to the drafting of Codes of Practice.

I've just found the compulsory cock-up (in accordance with sub para 7.4 - Cock-ups). Well, two of them actually. :o :rolleyes: So I am exercising my rights under sub para 7.4.3.2 and claiming a design feature.

However, here's a further revision, including a section on "A place for everything ... etc" and a corrected typo on the Acknowledgements page.

Toodle Pip!

Col

Blokes will not make physical contact with each other in any way in the shed unless,

1. in the case of inadvertant contact during the passing of a tool or beverage.
2. in the case of first meeting a new bloke where the shaking of hands is permitted.
3. in the case of medical emergency and only by suitably qualified paramedics. All other blokes present will stand to one side and utter appropriate sledging regarding the soft penile nature of the bloke being treated.

In the case of another mate entering the shed, he may only be greeted by a slight nod of the head and a barely audible grunt of acknowledgement.

A bloke will use up every sharp tool in the shed including those not really appropriate to the task at hand, prior to sharpening any tool. The bloke will only then sharpen said tools on an "as required" basis.

Each Code of Practice should have a dictionary or glossary of terms included. My first suggestion for the dictionary is:

Mallet: Any item close at hand with sufficient heft to complete the task.

Day off Dan?:D OR better yet a slow day at work?:D

On carers leave.

MrsP had an operation Tues so had to take some time off. ;)

Where a bloke is required to leave the environs of the shed, he should do so wearing a nail bag and with a blunt and half chewed chippies pencil behind his ear. Whilst out of the sanctity of the shed, he should stand and stare meaningfully on several occasions. This is to convince curious onlookers of his busy nature and deter any thoughts of giving the bloke an unblokely task.

Quote:

---

16. Women who claim they "love to watch sports" must be treated as spies until they demonstrate knowledge of the game (ie, can explain offside or LBW) and the ability to drink as much as the other sports watchers.

---

However, any woman who shows superior knowledge on any matter whatsoever, shall be banned forthwith.

This is good work, Dan. It closes off a few gaps in the Code's provisions. Your recommendations will be incorporated into the next update.

However, I reckon you might have opened a whole new field of endeavour in suggesting a glossary. Worthwhile, there can be little doubt. But I wonder if it doesn't need another document, separate from the Code of Practice.

Col

It occurs to me that if you want to print a version of the Code, it might be more convenient in A5 size rather than A4.

The smaller format will sit handily alongside your copy of Neil's seminal work: "A Polishers Handbook". Here's what the two formats look like alongside Neil's book.

When I post the next update, I'll include separate files for each of the two sizes.

The front covers with the illustration will have to be posted as separate files because they would otherwise exceed the 100 KB limit for attachments.

Col

Mate,

"Code of Practice" - hereby known as C.O.P.

Appendix A & B: is this original input by the ubeat team ? if previous knowledge is drawn upon it should be appropriately indexed, attributed and referenced.... we would not want the rules to be unable to be held up in court due to plaguarism... see recent court case of Metallica v's Kaza - viz pirating, royalties & illegal distribution.

I think appendix c should disappear - ive seen it elsewhere on the net. It adds no value to "shed-iquette..." if this is truely a "C.O.P." drawn up by the ubeaut team then there should be no plagarism, or, if previous knowledge is drawn upon it should be appropriately indexed, aatributed and referenced....

additionally, with due respect - shouldnot feedback from female bretheren be discounted? Perhaps a seperate sub-section for blokette's with thier own rules of operations - eg "Whiff of Lavender". After all "bloke" is the masculine pronoun. (No offence ladies...)

A formal "cut-off date" should be published whereby input shall not be accepted for publication into "Issue 1.0" - further input should be considered for subsequent issues of the C.O.P.

I suggest some of our "legal team" be bought into this discussion prior to finalisation of first issue. May I suggest Boban Esq. ? Unless legal ratification has been obtained then this can be no more than a rough draft to be "considered by the committee."

Once we have ratification I will take an action point to dress the document in correct "Mickeysoft word" format following formal documentation guidelines.

sincerely,

Zed (committee member):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zed

Appendix A & B: is this original input by the ubeat team ? if previous knowledge is drawn upon it should be appropriately indexed, attributed and referenced.... we would not want the rules to be unable to be held up in court due to plaguarism... see recent court case of Metallica v's Kaza - viz pirating, royalties & illegal distribution.

---

No – it’s not original input from the team, it was drawn from various different emails that have been circulating for years. You make a good point about appropriate attribution and referencing, though. I think if we do something to cover that, we won’t face any issues over plagiarism – even of the bubonic variety ;) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zed

I think appendix c should disappear - ive seen it elsewhere on the net. It adds no value to "shed-iquette..." if this is truely a "C.O.P." drawn up by the ubeaut team then there should be no plagarism, or, if previous knowledge is drawn upon it should be appropriately indexed, aatributed and referenced....

---

See above re attribution etc. I would prefer to leave it in but I’ll be happy to have others comment on its inclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zed

additionally, with due respect - shouldnot feedback from female bretheren be discounted? Perhaps a seperate sub-section for blokette's with thier own rules of operations - eg "Whiff of Lavender". After all "bloke" is the masculine pronoun. (No offence ladies...)

---

Zed, mate, you do like a good stir, don’t you? :rolleyes: Wendy has already said she wants to publish a Sheila’s version. I reckon that would be a worthwhile endeavour. What do other committee members think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zed

A formal "cut-off date" should be published whereby input shall not be accepted for publication into "Issue 1.0" - further input should be considered for subsequent issues of the C.O.P.

I suggest some of our "legal team" be bought into this discussion prior to finalisation of first issue. May I suggest Boban Esq. ? Unless legal ratification has been obtained then this can be no more than a rough draft to be "considered by the committee."

---

Now you’re really beginning to sound like a committee man. :eek: This is a classic recipe for doing nothing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zed

Once we have ratification I will take an action point to dress the document in correct "Mickeysoft word" format following formal documentation guidelines.

---

I have no idea what this last bit means. It reads like it was lifted right out of a public service memorandum! Do you want to provide a translation?:p

Col

How about something like this on the Acknowledgements page:-

Source Material

The Drafting Committee is grateful to the various anonymous creative minds who provided the brilliant original work on the following:-

Appendix A – Rules of Blokeness.

Appendix B – Blokeness Quotient.

Appendix C – Because I Am A Bloke.

These important documents have been circulating as emails for some years. The Drafting Committee is proud to have an opportunity to include them here and to acknowledge their original creators – even though the nature of generally distributed emails makes it impossible for that acknowledgement to be anything other than anonymous.

G'day Driver,

Having read through Appendix C, I shall refer to Zed's comment and raise my hand to second his motion.

I would like to pass a motion that the Code of Practice be passed and steps taken to impliment it for general publication and distribution within this Forum forthwith.

A top effort Driver. :cool:

I like appendix C :D :cool:

Gave me a good chuckle, just because you have read it elsewhere does not deem it unworthy of inclusion IMO. Others may not have seen it or even if they have would like to refer back. I know I will place it on the fridge and refer SWMBO to it from time to time.
"see the list on the fridge honey...." as I struggle to get her out the door as we are late for yet another dinner.

Great work by all :)

Joel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

I have no idea what this last bit means. It reads like it was lifted right out of a public service memorandum! Do you want to provide a translation?:p

Col

---

what I mean is I will format the document using the microsoft word (headings, indexes, references, tables, page numbers, headers, footers... etc...)

G'day,

Given JDub's motion to leave Appendix C for inclusion within the Code of Practice and giving the result 2 in favour and 2 against the motion should be counted as defeated and Appendix C to be included within the Code of Practice unless there be any other reasons that it may not be included. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zed

what I mean is I will format the document using the microsoft word (headings, indexes, references, tables, page numbers, headers, footers... etc...)

---

Zed

Have you actually looked at the zipped documents included in previous posts?:confused:

They are formatted using MS Word and they have headings, indexes, references, tables, page numbers, headers, footers... etc..

Re reading this great work , well done
Could I just get clarification on a couple of points
Clothing , are these allowed
Old track pants ?
Aprons ( including leather but only when actually doing boiler maker work )
Those dust coat things the teachers use to wear
And with visitors,
What are the rules as to suppling spare ear protection , eye protection , for visitors .

Are extra stubbie holders needed or should visitors supply there own.


Rgds

G'day Driver,

Under we by definition of a Shed under Section 5 alienating those who do not have ownership of a shed but work within a space be it a workroom, garage or other work space, and therefore should the definition of a shed be further defined as any other workspace under a Subsection to Section 5?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

Under we by definition of a Shed under Section 5 alienating those who do not have ownership of a shed but work within a space be it a workroom, garage or other work space, and therefore should the definition of a shed be further defined as any other workspace under a Subsection to Section 5?

---

Excellent point Waldo. I suffer currently from a lack of appropriate shed-like structure (soon to be corrected, I hasten to add) and therefore have to operate in a corner of the patio (which is co-opted as a shed-substitute) so I understand - and entirely agree - that this situation needs to be covered in the Code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashore

Could I just get clarification on a couple of points
Clothing , are these allowed
Old track pants ?
Aprons ( including leather but only when actually doing boiler maker work )
Those dust coat things the teachers use to wear
And with visitors,
What are the rules as to suppling spare ear protection , eye protection , for visitors .

Are extra stubbie holders needed or should visitors supply there own.

---

Equally good points, Ashore. Some obvious gaps that need plugging!

Col

Some other points/additions/suggestions: :cool:

5.2.1
For me my shed is a place where you can put something down and you can return one week later and there it will be, right were you left it.

5.2.2
Much like personal compost, you must keep turning it over for it to function properly.

G'day Driver,

As a suggestion might a shed be be defined as thus:

5.1.1 In leui of a bloke not being in owernship of a shed wherein tools / machinery reside in the undertaking or to the purpose of setting out to undertake such things, a 'shed' may be any given workspace or area not necissarilly confined within four walls, so as to also mean garage, workroom, patio/decking or any other such space that blokes undertake or set out to undertake projects therein.

I dunno. A "patio" sounds like somewhere you might encounter chaps and fruity beverages.

In the spirit of the document, I believe that if you call it a shed, then it is a shed. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

I dunno. A "patio" sounds like somewhere you might encounter chaps and fruity beverages.

---

:eek: :eek: :eek: Heaven forfend! That hadn't occurred to me but you're right. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

In the spirit of the document, I believe that if you call it a shed, then it is a shed. ;)

---

It's a shed. It's definitely a shed.

Here's the latest update. It includes additions suggested by:-

DanP - New content on Inter-Bloke Communications, Sharpening, and some supplementary advice on Standing and/or Leaning and Staring.

Zed - New - Acknowledgement of the (anonymous) authorship of Appendices.

Ashore - Blokely Attire and new stuff on Stubby Holders.

Waldo, JDub and silentC - The Shed.

Thanks, gentlemen for your sterling work.

Toodle Pip!

Col

Now we know why the constitution took so long to write?;) :D C'est bien mon ami.

G'day Driver,

I'd like to put forward a motion that the latest variation and ammendment of the Code of Practice be accepted and passed. Any one willing to second?

And three blokey cheers to Driver for his outstanding effort. :cool: :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by

Now we know why the constitution took so long to write?;) :D C'est bien mon ami.

---

I knew when I started this thread that there was likely to be a bit of work in it. Actually, I'm surprised at how far we've taken it in a relatively short time. The thread's first post was only a week ago.

What hasn't surprised me is the enthusiastic way it has been embraced by everyone who has contributed and the genuinely creative thinking that has gone into the contributions.

(Je te remercis, mon vieux métis et hache-manieur!)

Col

I second your motion Waldo. Many thanks to Col for this opus.:)

I wonder if the PTBs will consider including it in the Best of the Best?

A short while ago I posted something to the "Shedette" thread and then realised it raises a valid point... hence a slight revision for appraisal here:

If two sheds (shedettes' inclusive) are in close proximity no tools, fittings, parts of collections or any item that can be moved without use of an engine-hoist/forklift shall be moved from one abode to the other without previously obtained permission, preferably in writing. Blood- or tear-stained documents do not count as permission, nor does "In your dreams" or any verbal agreement made during a session involving blokes' drinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

I wonder if the PTBs will consider including it in the Best of the Best?

A short while ago I posted something to the "Shedette" thread and then realised it raises a valid point... hence a slight revision for appraisal here:

If two sheds (shedettes' inclusive) are in close proximity no tools, fittings, parts of collections or any item that can be moved without use of an engine-hoist/forklift shall be moved from one abode to the other without previously obtained permission, preferably in writing. Blood- or tear-stained documents do not count as permission, nor does "In your dreams" or any verbal agreement made during a session involving blokes' drinks.

---

or other male/female arrangements. IE. agree or the answer is no.

And more on the subject of sharpening, which leads on to... well...

When a bloke finally deigns to sharpen his tools, he will do so in a truly blokely manner. It doesn't matter whether he's simply reshaping a $2 cold-chisel or honing a $mega handplane blade, every tool sharpened will be able to circumcise a gnat or split atoms with a simple flourish. The final shape of the sharpened edge is irrelevant, the tool may be rendered totally useless for it's original use, whereupon it may become a part of a collection or find an alternative use. All that matters is that it's sharp.

It is mandatory to prove this by testing it upon the hairs of the fore-arm, followed by hairs of the leg should more tools be sharpened than the arms can readily accomodate. Scarification is not necessary, although there are those who deem that no tool is truly sharp until it has been blooded.

NB: It is not considered blokely to shave anywhere below the neck except when sharpening tools. Similarly, waxing is definite chap behaviour except when caused inadvertently by removing dried glue, lacquer, paint or similar that wasn't noticed when it was leaned in, spilled or otherwise splashed.

NB#2 An important exception to the last exception is the "bikini line" as no bloke dressed in suitably blokely attire would ever be in this situation. Or admit to it, anyway. Which is, to a bloke, the same thing. Consequently this would be a good method to determine whether a visitor is a bloke or a chap, were it not for the fact that only a chap would attempt to apply it.

Struth Skew... take a breath... I'm going purple in the face reading this stuff. :o

And that's the condensed version. :o

I just saw this a few minutes ago. My eyes are still watering from laughing so much. Have circulated to a few "blokes" who will seriously identify.
Thanks

I second the motion to accept.

Then all those in favor ( with Col's Ok of course )

Aye!!!!:D

looks good to mehttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon14.gif