When I was 18, I had one of those MA-1 Yank flying jackets. They were all the rage in the early 90s.
Mine was blue, but some of the girls said it was green, aquamarine-tourquoise. To this day I still say it was blue.
Printable View
When I was 18, I had one of those MA-1 Yank flying jackets. They were all the rage in the early 90s.
Mine was blue, but some of the girls said it was green, aquamarine-tourquoise. To this day I still say it was blue.
I'm starting to think that colour blindness (real or affected) is an essential part of being a real bloke. After all 1 in 5 of us have real colourblindness, and it's as good an excuse as not knowing the rules. I mean it's all black and white (except for the occasional technicolour yawn. But then you're feeling a little off colour anyway.......)
I was wondering.... is carrot a colour or a texture? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliban
Damned right! 'Sides, I'm pretty sure it defines a shed as being the "domain of a bloke." (Well... I think it does. I'll get SWMBO to check it out later. :rolleyes: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver
By including "shed" in the title you're tempting SWMBO, some chaps and the uninitiated into assuming it only applies to the shack out the back, when we know better. Why make trouble for ourselves? It's The Code. Leave it at that...
Like either of these? (don't pick the one on the left 'cos they call is 'sage' :eek: )Quote:
Originally Posted by havenoideaatall
http://store1.yimg.com/I/a-army-navydepot_1846_70169375
For some reason l cant open up the code of practice bugger:confused:
Actually a projectile, Cliff ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
that's the style. If memory serves, there were real ones, made to septic govt contracts, and 'fake' ones. Mine was a real one. My first was blue a fake- then I got a grouse green one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
:rolleyes: Blokes - sorry it's taken a while for THE Code of Practice to reach the UK shores.
Recently I moved some of my tools into the house to mend a light, and absentmindedly left them out of the shed for a few days.:o
:eek: SWMBO used said tools in my absence - nightmare!!! :eek:
I know it goes without saying that SWMBO must not use a Blokes tools EVER, but what has THE Code of Practice to say about this violation?
:confused: Please help...
Bloody hell, you are damned lucky she didn't confiscate them. :eek:
Listen, mate: your description of the appalling catastrophe that has befallen you (and, by the way, to which you have personally contributed) has shaken to the very core a number of blokes on this side of the globe.Quote:
Originally Posted by 11011100
Before we can adequately respond with blokely advice and point you in the direction of the appropriate section of the Code of Practice, we'll need to take stock (and, in all probability, a certain amount of strong blokely drink).
We'll get back to you.
Meanwhile, do not, repeat, do not, do anything you might later regret. I recommend assuming a thoughtful expression and adoption of the standing and/or leaning position.
It's a pity Ruffly didn't finish the blokette version of the code, but for the sake of argument let's assume the SWMBO under discussion is a blokette. After all, it's stated that she used the tools.
In such a situation, then she is blatantly in violation of code sec. 6.3.1 & 6.3.2, hopefully she did not compound her situation by also violating sec. 6.3.3
If, on the other hand, she could not ordinarily be considered a blokette... [shakes head] You ninny! :D
OK Geordie boy, I'm 2 hours ahead of Col so I've already finished my bottle of red....
Here is my opinion.
It all happened outside of the shed so there was no code violation. :cool:
But I still reckon you are bloody lucky she didn't confiscate them. :p
Have a warm beer & go to the shed & sharpen anything that is now blunt, (including your pin head) and let this be a lesson. :D
Geordie,
It's quite simple, really. I have this happen regularly whilst performing tasks outside the Shed Proper. Invoking para. 5.1.1.4 I simply designate the temporary area where the tools reside as the Shed Annex (or, more commonly, the Shed Improper). Then, based upon para. 5.2.2 (not overlooking the implications of para. 5.2.2.1) leaving the tools in the Shed Improper is NOT a violation of the Code because it is, in fact, a sub-part of the Shed Proper. :D
However . . . under para. 6.3 et seq. your SWMBO did, in fact, commit a Code violation by using the tools and is in serious danger of losing her blokette status.:eek: I suggest a caution card at the very minimum.:rolleyes:
Actually, Skew, I think you mean 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 - as they refer to Other Bloke's Tools. (You may be an update or two adrift of the latest version. This is not, in and of itself a Code violation, of course (we don't want to be too anal about these things, do we?:rolleyes: ) But I caution you to be careful, mate. A friendly piece of advice - nothing more.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!
As to your query, 11011100 (er, d'ya mind if I call you 1? We're fairly informal over here in Oz). As I was saying, ....1...as to your query, I reckon my mate Ginger Rogers has summed it up admirably. (Except for his remarks about being ahead of me. What he means is that Queensland time is 2 hours earlier than Western Australian time. Any other imputation can be dismissed. ;) )
Howay, man 1 - after you've carried out your sharpening penance and genuflected in the direction of the Laws of Shed Physics, open a couple of bottles of Amber and try to forget the whole horrible episode.
Col
Pip! I seem to be a bit adrift from the latest updates as well. :eek:
Penance to follow.:(
:eek: I wonder if I can plead extenuating circumstances: I didn't receive written notification of any modifications??Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver
I would set myself a penance, but I had one of those weekends where even my hammers now have nice, crisp edges. :rolleyes: As a result, any further testing of renewed edges would leave me open to accusations of chappish behaviour... and it's too damned cold to test 'em above the neckline.
Errrmmm... is the current version v7? I had to wander back through 10 pages to find it. Do you realise how much that feels like reading an instruction manual? :(
Extenuating circumstances? Written notification?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!
Mate, do these phrases sound at all blokely?
The current version is the last one I posted into this thread. Bearing in mind my previous remark about not wanting to be too anal, you will appreciate that I don't actually know which version #that is;) :p :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Skew ShiDAMN!!
Col
Where, in the code, does it refer to time zones, state supremisy, or smartarzedrey? :confused: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Driver
(2 glasses into 2nd bottle, and with a (an) 8 day old cold, I'll be as good as Gumby tomorrow. :rolleyes: )
Where were we?
(Note to Neil: I want a smile with a judge's face.:cool: )
I've forgotten wot I woz on about. :confused: :rolleyes:
Oooo, I remember.... :eek:
5.4. Decoration. Decoration of a shed is very important...
Make her a decoration. (Means she has to pose nude on the shed wall for about 15 or 16 months but she'll get used to it I'm sure. :D )
She must be wearing green shoes. (insert judge's serious face here.)
No, but every bloke should be able to understand weasel-speak. Even if it is only so we know which monkeys to throw peanuts atQuote:
Originally Posted by Driver
It doesn't. I was merely taking advantage of the fact that I knew - at this time of the evening you'd be halfway down your second bottle of red and ripe for a bit of p!ss-taking. ;) :p :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
Incidentally, which varietal, vineyard and vintage is receiving your patronage this evening, Ginge?
"...understand weasel-speak..." - true. But to USE "weasel-speak" - MA-A-ATE! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!
Cleanskin 2005 Merlot from the III Associates, McLarenvale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver
$6.67 a bottle landed in Cairns. :D (if you buy a hogshead :rolleyes: )
Mate & I went halfs in a Hogshead.
1 x Hopgsheads = 33 cartons= 396 bottles = 198 bottle each. :rolleyes:
We have about 75 bottles left. :D
RRP $18.50 a bottle cellar door. :)
Why Cliff, do you want to drink your wine out of them!:D or just hope that they are shiney?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
You didn't look at the bottom of the picture did you? :rolleyes: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by baxter
Picture has moved to here.
http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...548#post373548
You got yourself what sounds like a great price. How's it drinking? Any good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
I'm running a bit low in the red section of the cellar and need to re-stock. When you did that deal, did you get an opportunity to have a bit of a slurp before you bought?
Not really, (I mean, it is drinking fine, I didn't get to try it.) to get the good price, you prebuy & pay it off over 4 months before it arrives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver
We have had heaps from that winery & none was ever crook so we were going on reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
H'mmm Cliff!
I'd like to see your photo album some time - or is that one of your offspring :D The thing is, can she joint a board?
yes how else would I have noticed that she was wearing sandals that had a back to hold the wine;) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
For those who have asked...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
The III Associates, McLaren Vale. http://www.associates.com.au/
Cheers.
Come on Cliff, don't change the subject. Tell us more about the green shoes!
Well, if you can't work it out, you are on ya own mate 'cos if I do try to explain it to you, I'll just get m'self & Benny ('cos he can't help himself) in trouble all over again. :rolleyes: :cool: :D (Hint. The blue bits, not the green bits :rolleyes: )Quote:
Originally Posted by baxter
For anybody who is totally lost, we have to go all the way back to the original question about what to do about the use of the tools by the 'significant other,' & I refered to the Code of Practice 5.4. Decoration. Decoration of a shed is very important...
Make her ('significant other') a decoration. (Means she has to pose nude on the shed wall for about 15 or 16 months but she'll get used to it I'm sure. :D )
BUT only if she ('significant other') has green shoes. (and for the slow ones, blue bits & pink bits like the example.... damn I'm just getting in deeper here. :eek: )
If she is like the example in the green shoes, you may even like to look at section 6.2 Collections. :rolleyes:
Well.... now it sort of looks like I'm waffling 'cos some 'kind helpful sole' has removed the picture of the 'example with green shoes'.... damn :rolleyes: ... now I'll have to start a new thread in OS & link to it. :D
Picture has moved to here.
http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...548#post373548
BTW Col... while doing my home work to get my facts & figures (no pun intended) straight (Now why would I do that? :rolleyes: What the hell would I do with a straight figure. :confused: ) I found an error in continuity in the code.
Parra 5.4 about decorations refers to para 5.4 in the text & it should refer to para 5.6. Otherwise you have a recursivivity.
Thanks, mate. I'll fix it in the next update. (Could be a while. We haven't had any contributions for some time now).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
What about a bit in the code about SWMBO's not using a blokes tools! and penalties for those that do. (Not sure about the green shoes!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver
I had a few pints, after SWMBO used my tools, just to get over it, tried leaning and staring, tried sharpening a few bits and bobs, but I think I might just have a few more (pints) - just in case I'm not over it... :D
Anyone recommend a good Aussie wine? (red of course)? ;)
Yeap, the only sort. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 11011100
Nuh, seriously, I picked up a 2002 Cockfighter's Ghost Langhorne Creek Cab Sav for $20 & it was damned good for the price.
They also have a good Cab Merlot, a Shiraz &, if there is nothing else left, they have a very good unwooded chard. (see 8.3.7, or you can always say you bought it to impress a shiela. ;) )
PS. Hang her to the wall like a poster, even if she isn't wearing green shoes. ;)
OK - it's time to issue an update of The Code.
In another thread (see: https://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?p=448153) Dennis Millard posted a very good poem about sheds and woodworking. It was so good, in fact, that it really should be included within The Code. Anyway, Dennis has kindly given his permission and so "History In The Shed" is now Appendix D.
On a completely unrelated subject, it has been troubling the present writer for some while that DanP, that worthy walloper from country Victoria, saw it as an issue that the expression "life partner" was used to some extent throughout early versions of The Code. He felt - quite strongly - that the correct expression should be SWMBO. On lengthy consideration I have come to the conclusion that DanP is correct. SWMBO is the term of choice on these venerable forums so SWMBO it should be in The Code. The required changes have been made. Thanks, Dan. :)
The Drafting Committee has also taken the opportunity to make some necessary changes to various inaccurate cross-references throughout the text and to correct a couple of typos and one piece of inaccurate grammar.
If anyone spots any other errors they can either post a reference to the offending passage or elect to keep it to themselves. No prizes for spotting the cock-ups, just that warm glow of self-righteousness and the knowledge that you have been appropriately recognised by your peers. (Smart@rse!)
Col
Is the Domino mentioned the code? It shoud be, when you consider over 17,000 have already viewed just one thread "Festoop Domino Experience...." :?
If, Brother Lignum, you feel moved to pen a suggested amendment to The Code that specifically mentions the Domino and this meets the approval of the Drafting Committee (see page 29 of the latest updated version of The Code), the Domino may find itself achieving a mention. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lignum
G'day Brother Committee Member Driver,
It has occured to me in reading the newly ammeneded Code, that under Section 5, might it be warranted to have the inclusion that blokes who may feel the need to have their shed accredited as an Accredited Shed after submitting it Shed Scientist, Director of the Australasian Institute of Backyard Studies [email protected]. See http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ad.php?t=19202 .While not a requirment of a shed being a shed, that said blokes may proudly grunt and point towards the sticker, thus gaining recognition in their endevours from their neighbour or peer as being a bloke with a shed?