CNC mistake for your entertainment

[difalkner]

Almost two years ago I fired up the CNC for the first time and right away decided to cut a sign with several bit changes, varying depths of cut on the letters, generated in one G-code, and no clue how to make bit changes once it took off.  But, it was an inexpensive and soft piece of WRC so I let 'er rip.  Well, I completely messed it up and kept the piece as a reminder as to what happens when you get in over your head. 

The other day I decided I would modify the file because I know a WHOLE lot more about Fusion 360 now and thought I'd see if I could cut the sign properly on the other side of the same board.

Here's the one from Dec. 2016 -

And the one from this week -

I haven't decided whether to paint it, stain it, or just leave it alone.  If I hang it on the house it will be out of the weather and away from the sun.

You have my permission to laugh at my expense - I did!  LOL!
David

[pkinneb]

 

6 minutes ago, difalkner said:

A

Actually the distressed look is in right now just a little paint and sand through in few spots you'll be set  

[difalkner]

I guess we can say a Woodpecker has been busy with it.

David

[Woodenskye]

David,

Apostrophes must be difficult with a CNC. So difficult you forgot all about it in the new version.  

[difalkner]

1 hour ago, Woodenskye said:

David,

Apostrophes must be difficult with a CNC. So difficult you forgot all about it in the new version.  

Haha!  On the first version I went with the grammatically incorrect but widely accepted way of doing a sign.  When I did it the second time I decided grammar is still king over conventional norm.  The apostrophe shows it to be possessive but I wanted plural.  One could argue that possessive is correct because this is our house but my intention is the plural - there are two of us, so no apostrophe.

I'll make the sign mount such that I can flip it over and have it both ways -  

David

[Mick S]

I thought all you had to do was push a button!

That's far from the worst first CNC job I've seen. Your progress has been amazing to watch, David. From your build to your results, your contribution to the hobby/small shop CNC world has been generous!

[JohnG]

12 hours ago, difalkner said:

Haha!  On the first version I went with the grammatically incorrect but widely accepted way of doing a sign.  When I did it the second time I decided grammar is still king over conventional norm.  The apostrophe shows it to be possessive but I wanted plural.  One could argue that possessive is correct because this is our house but my intention is the plural - there are two of us, so no apostrophe.

I'll make the sign mount such that I can flip it over and have it both ways -  

David

I personally prefer it without. I enjoy seeing people revisit old projects so you can see a direct comparison of skill then vs now.

 

Not to be the grammar police, because I am not particularly good at the grammatical rules, but here’s my understanding-

Faulkner’s would be possessive for David or for Sandy Faulkner. “That’s David Faulkner’s house.”

Faulkners would be non-possessive for the Faulkner family. “The Faulkners live there.”

Faulkners’ would be possessive for the Faulkner family. “That’s the Faulkners’ house.”

That being said, there are sometimes traditions for different uses of names that aren’t necessarily grammatically correct. 

[difalkner]

1 hour ago, JohnG said:

I personally prefer it without. I enjoy seeing people revisit old projects so you can see a direct comparison of skill then vs now.

 

Not to be the grammar police, because I am not particularly good at the grammatical rules, but here’s my understanding-

Faulkner’s would be possessive for David or for Sandy Faulkner. “That’s David Faulkner’s house.”

Faulkners would be non-possessive for the Faulkner family. “The Faulkners live there.”

Faulkners’ would be possessive for the Faulkner family. “That’s the Faulkners’ house.”

That being said, there are sometimes traditions for different uses of names that aren’t necessarily grammatically correct. 

Close.  There is no 'u' in Falkner.  We spell it correctly.

Falkners' isn't correct but Falkner's is for possessive (apostrophe in wrong place in the first example).  Now if the last name already ends in an 's', such as Simmons, it would be Simmons' for possessive.

For pluralization of Simmons, then you add 'es' to the end  - Simmonses.  Even though this may look weird, because we're not accustomed to seeing it, that is the correct way of writing a name ending in 's' for pluralization.

My goal was to make the sign plural rather than possessive, hence no apostrophe on the second version.

While I'm certain there are exceptions the basic rule is no apostrophe for plural and use an apostrophe for possessive.

David

[JohnG]

18 minutes ago, difalkner said:

Close.  There is no 'u' in Falkner.  We spell it correctly.

No facepalm emoji here? Sorry, I knew a family of Faulkners. 

[JohnG]

And I guess I should have looked up the proper rules before posting 

[difalkner]

7 minutes ago, JohnG said:

No facepalm emoji here? Sorry, I knew a family of Faulkners. 

Haha!  No problem.  I've known some, as well.  Good people and we've had some fun conversations. 

William Faulkner was originally Falkner but when he was 19 he changed it because an editor published some of his work and spelled his name wrong.  He didn't want to rock the boat so he just changed it. I don't give in so easily and have been correcting it for 60+ years.  I do have a double standard, though.  You can write me a check and spell it any way you want.

4 minutes ago, JohnG said:

And I guess I should have looked up the proper rules before posting 

Again, no problem.  I just enjoy the grammar part but rarely 'go there'.  I participate in about 10 forums and most of what I read is pretty entertaining grammar-wise.  

David