Lost Art Press

25 thoughts on “The History of Wood, Part 15”

    1. Now that made me laugh, at least some good has come from it. Still, I keep reading, but I am fading.

  2. This is complete and utter bullshit. Not funny, not witty, not literate.
    You are giving this excellent blog a bad name. I’m asking nicely – please stop.

  3. I’m not exactly sure why, but every time I see one of these I get the sinking feeling that it’s some sort of preview/warmup for the Calvin Cobb book.

    Of course I don’t have to click, read, blah, blah, etc.. I do have an interest in Lost Arts’s output to some extent though. That = potential paying customer (actual past customer btw). The limits of the extent of my interest in Lost Arts’s output contract every time I see one of these appear.

    I come here to find things that are interesting, useful, informative, or even simply entertaining and well written. The History of Wood series is sorely lacking in any of that.

  4. Wait for when the History of Wood mixes up with developments at La Société des bains de mer de Monaco…

    Swimming, throwing cubes, turning wheels… All the important stuff.
    Wait.
    Or don’t.

  5. You know the phrase, “It’s so bad that it’s good”? Well, it doesn’t apply in this case.

  6. What’s with the all the hate for History of Wood? I find these surreal little postings absolutely delightful. Sure they aren’t helpful, I don’t actually learn anything and that scratchy font is hard to read sometimes but the sheer absurdity of the content and this disjointed, stream of consciousness writing style never fails to make me smile.

    I’d totally buy McDara a beer sometime if I get the chance.

    1. Not commenting on the content, but I find it amusing how hand lettering is now a “font”.

      1. These are clearly typed out using a handwriting font. The letters are too consistently shaped and spaced to be natural handwriting. Plus the image looks too clean to be a scanned from a paper original without doing a lot more post processing than the content warrants…

      1. That’s rich coming from the commentator that posted this constructive and insightful bit of ‘criticism’ earlier today:

        “This is complete and utter bullshit. Not funny, not witty, not literate.
        You are giving this excellent blog a bad name. I’m asking nicely – please stop.”

        You’re doing far more to give this excellent blog a bad name with the vitriol you posted today than a month of solid “History of Wood” stories would ever do. You should really learn to lighten up, you’ll live longer and annoy people less.

  8. For those that don’t like them, pretend you just opened your inbox and some spam snuck through. Do you read it or just go to the next message? Treat this the same way, although in this case the next message may take a day or two.

    1. That’s all very well, but this drivel has hijacked an excellent, informative and intelligent blog and dragged it down. To continue posting it is to delude Mr McDara into thinking he is amusing. He isn’t. He IS an idiot. Can somebody please tell him? I’ve tried to, clearly to no avail.

      1. Wow. Definitely see what you mean about distinguishing between ‘hate’ and criticism. This must be the ‘hate’ part.

      2. “History of Wood” is dragging down the quality of the other posts? So you are implying that Chris is building a knockdown bench because “History of Wood” has trashed his taste in workshop furniture? David Savage’s post seem to be uninfected, but perhaps the Atlantic Ocean acts as barrier.

      3. Tpier, that’s not what I said. If there is an implication, it is that the history of wood is out of place on an otherwise quality blog. Where was the implication that it had ‘trashed’ Mr Shwarz’s taste?
        Do try to keep up…

      4. I think you need to read the archives. There’s talk of poop, hemorroids, water as the best finish, just to name a few. (All posted by Chris) I think you’ll find that this blog, like Camelot, can be ” a very silly place.” Did you know Raney passed?

        And most important, Chris allows Dan to post No one hijacked the site.

  9. Ok I surrender. From now on I’ll only post grovelling comments.
    Wouldn’t want to upset such sensitive souls.

  10. Did you just use the word “gook”? Really? While I will concede your pathetic “knarly”, even though it is weak minded, and I accept that you are too dim to distinguish “a lot”, “alot” and “allot”, the use of a racial epithet (you would call it a racial epitaph, no doubt) is beyond the pale.

    Perhaps you meant to use the word “goop”, but you didn’t. For those of us who remember Viet Nam as something other than something poorly taught by illiterate teachers in government schools, that is just further proof that your writing is moronic.

    1. gook
      /ɡʊk; ɡuːk/
      noun (US)
      1.
      (slang) a derogatory word for a person from a Far Eastern country
      2.
      (informal) a messy sticky substance; muck

Comments are closed.