The Code of Practice

:) G'day Caliban,

As I understand hijacking a thread, it means diverting it from its original purpose or trying to upstage the original poster. I hope that you do not think that it was my intention to do so, nor in fact do I believe I did. I, in fact, was struck by the essential "rightness" of the CoP and believed it might apply internationally. I still believe that. It is a sound document that has both character and common sense which is applicable worldwide.

If, for reasons which escape me at the moment, I have offended anyone in OZ, I certainly apologise. In general I admire the great good humour and camaraderie shown on this forum, and I hope to be a contributing member of it. I am not a professional woodworker, but an avid hobbyist and have much more to learn than to contribute in the way of knowledge. :o

On the other hand, I admit to an admiration for Australia of which I cannot, in good conscience, be ashamed. Fortunately, I am old enough, and my skin is thick enough, to take almost anything. But I must draw the line at advertising on a dating forum in NZ. Here in the States we have a term for such things which is unsuitable for a family-orientated forum. :D

Cliff, I am sorry I missed the barbie. I asked the missus but she had to work this weekend. Pity. Perhaps the next one. :) Happy birthday to the wife from America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Childress

If, for reasons which escape me at the moment, I have offended anyone in OZ, I certainly apologise. In general I admire the great good humour and camaraderie shown on this forum, and I hope to be a contributing member of it. I am not a professional woodworker, but an avid hobbyist and have much more to learn than to contribute in the way of knowledge. :o

---

Apologizing for hijacking a thread. :eek:

Whats wrong with you Bob, apologizing for hijacking is not needed as it's our favourite pasttime around here. It sounds as you're trying to be a Seppo :D feeling sorry.:p

BTW always a good subject is pancakes, maybe you can tell us how you make them over there.

Peter.

Good on ya Bob. :D

Yer ok Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry72

Rule #1. Do not for any reason convert your shed into a bar /pool room... it is bad shed ediquite, build a bar room onto your house instead!(your shed will help you build it...)

---

Oh no, seems I was in direct violation of the above rule.

I converted our 6*7 meter garage into a pool room.

This necessitated the building of a 6*6 meter carport.

Fortunately I also have a 2.5*5.5m workshop, a garden shed (for lawnmowers, bikes ets) and a storage shed (for all the stuff I don't want to get covered in shavings that fly around the workshop), and I am currently building another shed cause I have run out of space in the others.

I hope my secondary endeavours make up for the above indescression.

Cheers..........

PS - That was just my attempt at getting this thread back on track...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purpleheart

Oh no, seems I was in direct violation of the above rule.

I converted our 6*7 meter garage into a pool room.

This necessitated the building of a 6*6 meter carport.

Fortunately I also have a 2.5*5.5m workshop, a garden shed (for lawnmowers, bikes ets) and a storage shed (for all the stuff I don't want to get covered in shavings that fly around the workshop), and I am currently building another shed cause I have run out of space in the others.

I hope my secondary endeavours make up for the above indescression.

Cheers..........

---

This breach can be negated by installing a suitable workbench top and woodworking vices on the pool table and fitting a dusty in your pool room. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

This breach can be negated by installing a suitable workbench top and woodworking vices on the pool table and fitting a dusty in your pool room. :D

---

...for the bulldust of course... ;) :)


Cheers.................Sean

I posted the link to the code of practice to the coodabeenchampions on the ABC as I thought this would be right up their alley and we might get 15 seconds of fame. Although I wasn't listening last weekend I heard they ridiculed my name (I'm not fussed, I'm used to it), anyway, they said they might ridicule (er . . . . do a program about ) sheds in a coming program so make sure you stay tuned.

Just a quick question for the Drafting Committee:

Whilst studying the Code today I realized that Para. 6 (Tools) does not proscribe a Bloke from reading a tool’s Instructional Manual. :eek: Is this an Australian cultural phenomenon or merely an oversight? I should think, as we do here, a Bloke would fiddle a tool until he completely buggered it up before he would stoop so low as to read the Instructions. :D

What say you?

Have to agree with you there Bob! Its only after you've attempted to assemble any given piece of equipment/plant and realised you have bolts left over that don't fit anywhere, that the instructions manual is even searched for!:eek::o

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Mac

Have to agree with you there Bob! Its only after you've attempted to assemble any given piece of equipment/plant and realised you have bolts left over that don't fit anywhere, that the instructions manual is even searched for!:eek::o

Cheers,

---

With me it's a point of pride. Reading the instructions can stunt your creativity. If I don't have any bits left over I feel I haven't been innovate enough in the assembly. Like the time I left the big end bearing locators out of the mates VW beetle motor. What are these little lugs for - can't be that important!

I've done similar with gudgeon pin circlips on a lawn mower, the only bits left...*groan*...pull the bugger back down again and put them in!

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Childress

Just a quick question for the Drafting Committee:

Whilst studying the Code today I realized that Para. 6 (Tools) does not proscribe a Bloke from reading a tool’s Instructional Manual. :eek: :D

What say you?

---

Bob

Mate, you're in danger of committing a Code violation :eek: by referring to an out-of-date version. The most recent update is your guide. Backtrack through this thread and have a hard look.

Col

I may have you call you up on that point, Brother Driver.

Keeping up-to-date documentation of anything, even of the code itself, is verging on chapiness. I must admit that I am undecided whether referring to an old version of the code, and thereby committing an offence, or failing to carry out some action prescribed therein, is more of a concern than the chapiness associated with the diligent observance of the update path of the document itself.

This is a quandry. Is it covered in the current version? No! Don't tell me, I don't want to know!

Further pondering on the above has revealed to me an alarming paradox, which I hope you can put right. In essence, we are saying that to read a manual is not acceptable under the code. If the code itself can in any way be construed as a "manual", well you can see the dangerous position this puts us in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

I must admit that I am undecided whether referring to an old version of the code, and thereby committing an offence, or failing to carry out some action prescribed therein, is more of a concern than the chapiness associated with the diligent observance of the update path of the document itself.

---

And you're calling me up!?! :eek:

....and as for:-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Further pondering on the above has revealed to me an alarming paradox, which I hope you can put right. In essence, we are saying that to read a manual is not acceptable under the code. If the code itself can in any way be construed as a "manual", well you can see the dangerous position this puts us in.

---

I have three comments:-

1. It's the Code, man, the Code. It's not a manual. They're for fools with tools (as opposed to blokes, you understand).

2. And you're calling me up!?! :eek:

3. :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

Ok, well if you are sure it's not a manual, then I suppose it's alright. I haven't read it yet, just to be safe.

I suppose it's a bit like the old test of witchery. They push you off a cliff, if you survive you're a witch, if you die you're not. If you read the code and it confirms what you already know, then you are a bloke. But if you learn something from it, then you are not and never can be a true bloke.

Shame on you silent. Shame shame shame.

:D

Did you know that Derryn Hinch never actually said that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Is it covered in the current version? No! Don't tell me, I don't want to know!

---

Exactly right.
We don't have to know the rules so therefore we are all innocent :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Did you know that Derryn Hinch never actually said that?

---

I thing it was Steve Vizard taking the P out of Daren Hunch.

Now what is this with you pushing the witches off me???? :confused:

I always thought that Derryn Hinch is the guy from fast forward. Don't blame me, you guys all look the same so how can I tell the difference. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Ok, well if you are sure it's not a manual, then I suppose it's alright. I haven't read it yet, just to be safe.

---

Don't be shy ;) - you're a member of the Drafting Committee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

I suppose it's a bit like the old test of witchery. They push you off a cliff, if you survive you're a witch, if you die you're not..

---

The modern version of this is Catch-22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

If you read the code and it confirms what you already know, then you are a bloke. But if you learn something from it, then you are not and never can be a true bloke.

---

See! I knew you understood really.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

We don't have to know the rules so therefore we are all innocent

---

...and this is the absolutely brilliant get-out clause that counters Catch-22!;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

...and this is the absolutely brilliant get-out clause that counters Catch-22!;)

---

Yeah, I needed that in coz I NEVER read rules or instructions :cool:

G'day blokes,

Firstly, what a top thread, chuckles and even a guffaw or two while at work the other day. It occurred to me this weekend ( a domestic one) that there is probably room for some general observations on colours.

Puce, lilac, taup etc are definitely not bloke colours, it is probably not even permissable for a bloke to use these in general conversation. THere are a couple of very borderline ones, pink and beige etc. We all know that timber can be available in pink prime and there are particularly blokey things that are always pink. Beige is pretty borderline, but a necessity to avoid colours like taup, lilac and puce.

Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macman

.............. Beige is pretty borderline, but a necessity to avoid colours like taup, lilac and puce.

Matt

---

They're colours? I thought they were exotic diseases! :eek:

Mick

There's a colour called 'taup'? :confused:

Mate (lowers voice and looks over shoulder), I have a vague disquiet about this. It might even be a Code violation to know that there's a colour called taup. :eek: And puce? Isn't that what happens when you've had far too many blokely drinks followed by a kebab?:o

It's ok, he didn't spell it right, so he's OK.


OH NO! I've just outed myself. Quick, think of something. How 'bout those Wallabies, eh? :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

It's ok, he didn't spell it right, so he's OK.


OH NO! I've just outed myself. Quick, think of something. How 'bout those Wallabies, eh? :o

---

:D :D

Cliff, it's spelt 'berf'dy. And, 'Baaa-b-que' where I'm from. You invite the cute wooly ones, which really makes them nervous, for more than one reason too (as they eye the special wellies in the corner).;)

No self-respecting bloke knows of the existence of 'tourquoise' either.

It's a funny blue or green, the word is taken to be some marine mammal.

Might get away with aqua-marine.

So how do you know about it, eh? What have you got to say for yourself, hmm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havenoideaatall

Might get away with aqua-marine.

---

No, you wouldn't. :cool:

He would if he was drinking it. ;) :D

Paint the inside walls of a shed ? , other than the occasional patch of overspray , or a patch to see what colour it drys to , a spill splash etc, or a bit of white gloss to draw or sketch on , why would you paint the inside, no one sees the walls , there covered in calander pickies , tapping and other charts, shadow boards, shelves, cupboards , timber racks, fridge , hooks with leads etc .
Damm waste of time for a bloke to paint the inside walls IMO :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers

He would if he was drinking it. ;) :D

---

No, he wouldn't. With a name like that, it has got to be a chap's drink. ;)

To Driver:
The front page cover needs to have the word "SHED" somewhere on it.
As "The Code of Pratice" refers to anything.

"The Shed Code of Pratice"
"Shed's Code of Pratice"
"Code of Pratice for a Shed"

just trying help...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodgrub

To Driver:
The front page cover needs to have the word "SHED" somewhere on it.
As "The Code of Pratice" refers to anything.

"The Shed Code of Pratice"
"Shed's Code of Pratice"
"Code of Pratice for a Shed"

just trying help...:)

---

Woodgrub

Think about it like this: there is only one Code of Practice that's of any real worth and that's our Code of Practice.

In other words, the Code of Practice.

Any bloke, when referring to the Code of Practice knows what it is about. No further explanation is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wongo

Don't blame me, you guys all look the same so how can I tell the difference. :D

---

Do the math Scott!:rolleyes: