HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Re: Prove something (was A = A. Isn't this obvious?)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:43:46 GMT

In article <BvM2Mu.76o@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>"Infinity is the fixed point of the equation x=succ(x)."
>"John is tall."
>"Unicorns have exactly one horn."
>
>Each of these statements is meaningful, in one way or another; and
>they refer to infinite, fuzzy, and non-existent things.  Actually,
>I can understand what you mean if you define "existence" to have
>only real-world referents; but (not wanting to go back to the
>question of concepts existing, which we did a couple of years
>ago) it's a very risky stance to say that there are no fuzzy facts.
>Why should the universe be precise?
>
> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

	(1)	I don't know what the equation x=succ(x) represents, so I
can't comment on it.
	(2)	"John is tall." is not fuzzy in context.
	(3)	Unicorns exist as objects in paintings, and you are quite
correct that it is their nature to have exactly one horn.
	
-- 
Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:56:10 GMT

In article <BvCJzt.87p@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>This argument is getting really strange.  Someone else, I think Chris Holt,
>brought up the denotation / connotation point.  The point here is that words
>are irrelevant to reality.

Are you saying that his point is that words are irrelevant to reality, or 
is that what YOU believe?  If words are unrelated to reality, why bother
with them?  If words are unrelated to reality, how can words be true or false?
Does that conclusion apply even to the words "Words are irrelevant to to
reality."?

--Brian
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:23:34 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <lc3sdaINNjui@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
>Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
>Date: 24 Sep 92 16:49:46 GMT

>In article 717344336@exu.ericsson.se, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>Aristotle's advice to anyone who encountered a skeptic of such laws as 
>>identity and noncontradiction was to hit them over the head with a mallet. 
>>There's no question of proving either that A=A or that A!=A, because any
>>attempt at proving them will end up using them.
>>

>So if I want to prove to you that frumplelumps do not exist I cannot because
>I must first assume its existence to prove its non-existence? Me thinks
>the mallet has already struck. 

No no no. It isn't denials of nonexistence--or contrapositively, 
affirmations of existence--that presuppose assuming anything. It
is the formal rules [e.g. identity and noncontradiction] themselves
that can't be denied without presupposing them.  Statements expressing
these rules don't apparently have existential import.  


>>But objectivists have to meet the, to my mind anyway, serious issue of
>>cognitive emptiness of mere formal rules, and to indicate just how you
>>can get from recognition of this formal rule to saying something substantive
>>about the world.  

>Yes, this is perhaps a point of easier agreement. If we assume A=A 
>how then can we jump with the total axiomatic confidence to satements 
>concerning rights, property, etc. ?

I agree here. Perhaps only some kind of realist metaphysic of universal 
value absolutes of the Platonic sort can provide the framework in which 
to work out a justification for an objective grounding of a doctrine of 
rights.  A=A'll never do that.  But randians would probably find Platonism
just as unsatisfactory for that purpose as they find Kantianism for a theory 
of ethics.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:44:29 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <exukjb.246.717438214@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>>>But objectivists have to meet the, to my mind anyway, serious issue of
>>>cognitive emptiness of mere formal rules, and to indicate just how you
>>>can get from recognition of this formal rule to saying something substantive
>>>about the world.  
>
>>Yes, this is perhaps a point of easier agreement. If we assume A=A 
>>how then can we jump with the total axiomatic confidence to satements 
>>concerning rights, property, etc. ?

Read "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." I don't agree with some
of the Objectivists more abstract views (art, happiness, among others),
but the book gives a pretty decent transition from the three axioms of
knowlegde to individual rights & capitalism. The basis for individual rights
rests on the premise that man's means of survival is his mind, that 
the opposite of the mind, or the ability to think for yourself, is force.
Individuals cannot think for themselves with a gun pointed at them.
So, in order to have a society where the individual is allowed to use his
means of survival--his mind--most effectively, is one where initiatory
force is outlawed, and the only proper government is one which has
the power only of retaliatory force to protect individuals from harm.
This would constitute an "objective" society, where all individuals are
equal under law.

Property rights rest on the fact that the fruits of your labor should go
to you, because you worked for them (and used, in the end, your mind to do
so.) 

>I agree here. Perhaps only some kind of realist metaphysic of universal 
>value absolutes of the Platonic sort can provide the framework in which 
>to work out a justification for an objective grounding of a doctrine of 
>rights.  A=A'll never do that.  But randians would probably find Platonism
>just as unsatisfactory for that purpose as they find Kantianism for a theory 
>of ethics.
>//////////////////////////////////////
>/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
>//////////////////////////////////////

Platonism? Yikes! Absolutely right. The Objectivists are totally opposed
to any sort of transcendentalism.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 10:27:35 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <lc3sdaINNjui@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 717344336@exu.ericsson.se, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>Aristotle's advice to anyone who encountered a skeptic of such laws as 
>>identity and noncontradiction was to hit them over the head with a mallet. 
>>There's no question of proving either that A=A or that A!=A, because any
>>attempt at proving them will end up using them.

>So if I want to prove to you that frumplelumps do not exist I cannot because
>I must first assume its existence to prove its non-existence? Me thinks
>the mallet has already struck. 

>>But objectivists have to meet the, to my mind anyway, serious issue of
>>cognitive emptiness of mere formal rules, and to indicate just how you
>>can get from recognition of this formal rule to saying something substantive
>>about the world.  

>Yes, this is perhaps a point of easier agreement. If we assume A=A 
>how then can we jump with the total axiomatic confidence to satements 
>concerning rights, property, etc. ?

But objectivists don't just jump directly from A=A to politics and ethics.
There is a great deal of development of epistemology that has to come first
and identity is just the starting point of that process.  In addition,
Objectivism is not just a deductive process that proceeds in mathematical 
terms from A=A.  Numerous observational facts need to be considered later
on too.  For example, we can observe that certain kinds of living beings exist
and some are vegetative, others are ambulatory, and yet others are conceptually
conscious.  This is not directly derived from first principles, but is the 
result of the application of certain simple first principles (and things like 
the validity of sense perception) to vertain observations which can be logically
validated.  I don't have nearly enough room here to trace all those steps
for you in this message, but you can see the whole thing from A-Z if you 
pick up a copy of Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand".
His explanations are much beter than anything I could hope to type in here.

--Brian
From: scrxlt@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (DAVID OLSZEWSKI)
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
Subject: Misc Band Equipment Forsale
Keywords: **** MISCELLANEOUS BAND EQUIPMENT FOR SALE ****
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:52:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Yamaha APX SPL I	Acoustic Electric Guitar
	Burnt Orange w/ Flamed Maple Top and Hard Shell Case.
	$ 275.00 o.b.o.

	Yamaha APX9-12		Acoustic Electric 12 String
	Black w/ Stereo Inputs and Hard Shell Case.
	$ 475.00 o.b.o.

	Zoom 9000		Portable Effects Processor
	Comes with Foot Pedal.
	$ 250.00 o.b.o.

	Peavey Odyssey		Electric Guitar
	Les Paul Style,  Red w/ Maple Top,  24 Frets,  2 Humbuckers
	Gold Hardware and Hard Shell Case.
	$ 325.00 o.b.o.

	Peavey Backstage Chorus 208	25 Watt Practice Amp
	2-8 inch Speakers,  Clean and Distortion Channels,  Reverb
	and Chorus,  w/ Foot Switch.
	$ 225.00 o.b.o.

		All items are like new and in the best possible condition.  
	Serious inquiries only please.  I'll pay for 50 to 100% of shipping 
	costs if sale is made immediatley.

	NONE OF THIS EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN ABUSED .... IT HAS HARDLY BEEN USED
	*******************************************************************


		%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
		%				%
		%	David Olszewski		%
		%	Analex Corporation	%%%%%%%%%
		%	(216) 977-0055			%
		%	scrxlt@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov 	%
		%					%
		%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
From: jneil@panix.com (John Neilson)
Subject: Re: Strat pickups
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:53:14 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Sep27.022703@disuns2.epfl.ch> weidmann@disuns2.epfl.ch (Nicolas Weidmann) writes:


>		What is the difference in the kind of sound produced
>	by the Texas special pickups and those used on the vintage
>	reissues ?

This is getting to be a FAQ, but the consensus is that the extra coil
windings give the pickup a much higher output, and the expense of some
of the high frequencies.  So you have a very strong, 'darker' sound
that some people find very 'bluesy'.

Newsgroups: alt.guitar
From: wright@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Ted Wright)
Subject: Re: Why tubes? (was Re: Building effects units for gu
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:08:22 GMT

In article <TILL.92Sep30092630@acid-rain.lucid.com> till@acid-rain.lucid.com (Don Tillman) writes:
>From: till@acid-rain.lucid.com (Don Tillman)
>Subject: Re: Why tubes? (was Re: Building effects units for gu
>A single common-emmiter bipolar transistor stage actually has more 2nd
>harmonic than 3rd, a push-pull tube output stage is almost entirely odd
>order distortion, and early transistor amps had a lot of even order
>distortion.  (I believe the source of this misconception is an incorrectly
>applied electrical engineering class example having to do with the Fourier
>analysis of the exponential transfer function of an idealized single
>bipolar transistor stage.)
>  -- Don

I believe that the reason transistor amp have more odd harmonics
is because of the way that they clip when overdriven. A transistor
amp would have a sharp, hard clipping action compared to the more
gradual limiting action of a tube amp.

If you take a sine wave and just flatten the top 25% of it, the way
a transistor amp might, its spectrum might look alot like a square wave
(lots of odd harmonics). 





Ted Wright (wright@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov)
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQCNAiqvp90AAAEEAO0VFsrmnZhmALDOZEG6vPlTwB5jqM5swOkhDqJIOHOtyNug
2ZfCpsQUYcrVCKjGs4zaivEoiQxi+538mwNhL9HXQK+I3HR2xESzpJEoLiv62kMI
cwVbEw9QAuxY7Z01KHi+bNYhYQvzBczaVttPJdOTvNpbUCzWIeKXEM95WINbAAUR
tChUZWQgV3JpZ2h0IDx3cmlnaHRAbGltczAxLmxlcmMubmFzYS5nb3Y+
=uu9S
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroups: alt.guitar
From: till@acid-rain.lucid.com (Don Tillman)
Subject: Re: Ibanez pickups hum
Reply-To: till@lucid.com
Organization: Lucid, Inc.
	<TILL.92Sep28103928@acid-rain.lucid.com>
	<29SEP92.20406382.0052@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>
	<TILL.92Sep29174802@acid-rain.lucid.com>
	<1992Sep30.222015.4298@verdix.com>
Date: 3 Oct 92 09:28:10

[Resending -- the pitiful excuse for software I'm using indicates that it
didn't get out the first time.  Apologies if you're seeing this twice.]

   Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:20:15 GMT
   From: bill@verdix.com (William Spencer)
   Organization: Verdix Corp.

   till@acid-rain.lucid.com (Don Tillman) writes:

   >   From: META/Mark Hammer
   >   It bears noting that my pickup coils could have identical numbers of
   >   windings, but unequal DC resistance, and have hum sensitivity as a
   >   result.

   >Sorry, this is just not correct.  The induced voltage from a magnetic field
   >(hum, noise, screaming high Bb, whatever) is determined by (among other
   >things) the number of turns of the coil but it is *not* determined by the
   >dc resistance of the coil.  Maxwell's equations have been proven pretty

   Yes, but the output voltage of the coil under load will be reduced because the
   resistance appears in series with the induced voltage. Ironically, a coil with
   greater resistance will need more turns to get the voltage up enough to 
   compensate for the loss. This will make the DC resistance even more different,
   not less. 

True, but given typical values (coil resistance = 5K, load = 250K) this
effect will be roughly 1/50th of the effect due to the number of windings.
So I'd say it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

And yes, it'd be an inverse effect (higher resistance = less output).

   However, in the case of Mark's hand-made pickups, the DC resistance may 
   indicate bigger, looser, sloppier coils with greater loop area which increases
   the inductance, so there could be an exception here. 

Now that's a possibility.  The winding would have to be mighty sloppy to
make for a noticable difference though.
							
							This can only be
   guaranteed if the wire is totally uniform though.

Absolutely!  And we're pretty much assured that it isn't.  

  -- Don
From: glenn@moeng2.morgan.edu (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
Subject: Re: REQ: Halloween tunes
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:25:26 -0500
Organization: The Space-Time Fabrication Institute, Rockville, MD.
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

day@elmer.orl.mmc.com (Jim Day) writes:

>So, I would like to know if anyone has any "Halloween music (chords, 
>words, etc) they would like to share with me.  

Unfortunately I don't have anything handy, but I do have some
suggestions (just like everybody else).  Some of these can be
found on the ftp archive at nevada.  

The format is --
Artist:			"Song" (_Album_ if I remember it)

Focus:			"Hocus Pocus"
Alice Cooper:		"Welcome To My Nightmare" (_Welcome_To_My_Nightmare_)
			"The Black Widow" (ibid)
			"Devil's Food" (ibid)
			"I Love The Dead" (Not sure -- _Billion_Dollar_
						_Babies_, perhaps?)
			"Cold Ethyl" 
The Kinks:		"Just Another Full Moon" (I think it's on
					_Lola_Versus_Powerman_And_The_
					_Money-go-round_ or _Sleepwalker_,
					but I'm not sure which.  I may also
					have the title wrong.)
			"Sleepwalker" 
The Beatles:		"Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" (Not Hallowe'een
					related, but eerie sounding.)
??:			"Don't Pay The Ferryman"
Charlie Daniels Band:	"The Devil Went Down To Georgia"
??:			"The Monster Mash"  (Someone had to say it.)
Warren Zevon:		"Roland The Headless Thompson Gunner"
			"Werewolves Of London" (of course)
_Rocky_Horror_:		"Sweet Transvestite" (Spooky if sung right, and
					and besides, Hallowe'en is most
					TVs' favourite holiday)
			"Time Warp" (generally good party tune to get
					people hopping, and not too out
					of place)
			"(There's a Light) Over At The Frankenstein Place"
The Who:		"Boris The Spider"
Pink Floyd:		"One Of These Days"
Blue Oyster Cult:	"Godzilla"
			"Don't Fear The Reaper"
??:			"Hypnotized" (is it by Fleetwood Mac perhaps?)
Santana:		"Black Magic Woman"
??:			"Witchy Woman"
Klaatu:			"Paranoia" (_Endangered_Species_)
			"Howl At The Moon"
Frank Zappa:		"Titties 'n' Beer" (is this the right title?)

I'm sure you can find _some_ of these.  :-)

If you're willing to do "filk" music, I can suggest a few more.


-- 
D. Glenn Arthur Jr., The Human Vibrator, glenn@bessel.umd.edu
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."

How much interest is there in a Transvestite/Transsexual newsgroup?  How many 
would post there?   Anonymously?  How many would _vote_ non-anonymously?  And
what would you name it?  

You can send me mail anonymously at anonymus+262@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu.

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
Date: Sun,  4 Oct 1992 17:52:09 -0400 
From: Nicolas Alejandro Arauz <na0s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: More Zoom fx help!?

Could someone tell me how the Zoom 9000 wah pedal effects compare to
those of the 9030?  I know the 9030 has a pretty cool Wah pedal
simulator and I was just wondering if the 9000 was also as good.  Also,
does anyone know anything about the new Zoom 9001 yet?  It's supposed to
be cleaner sounding than the other portable Zooms (9000/9002).  Is that
the only difference between the new 9001 and the 9000?  I assume all
else is the same (# of effects at the same time, choice of effects,
etc.)  Thanks a lot for all of you guys' help!
From: luciw@apple.com (Bill Luciw)
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
Subject: Re: mesa boogie info anyone
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:50:18 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-Xxdate: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:58:51 GMT

In article <monte.717091021@spider.wri.com> Monte Seyer,
monte@spider.wri.com writes:
>I have heard of these models (among others):
>MkII, MkIII, MkIV, Cal .22, Cal .50
>
>My question is, what features do the various models have?
>
>-ability to turn off one or more tubes in order to overdrive (?)
> at lower power (eg, 25, 50, 100 watts)
>-channel switching
>-effects loop
>-type of EQ
>-on amp effects (reverb, etc)
>-general tonal qualities (clean, grungy, etc)
>
>Any info you might have would be appreciated.
>

I own a MkIV, 12" Combo.  It sounds amazing.  It has three basic
channels, Rhythm I, Rhythm II and Lead.  The channels can be voiced to
sound quite different.  For example, Rhythm I can be tweaked to sound
like a Fender while the Lead Channel can be set to sound like a
completely different amp [tons of overdrive].  I know other amps claim
this, but the Boogie delivers.

You can run the MkIV in Class A mode and shut down two of the four power
tubes.  By the way, you can substitute 2 EL34s for 2 of the four 6L6's if
you like.  Also, the Boogie has a "tweed" mode that simulates a Variac to
get a 'browner' sound.

It has a footswitch for channel switching and a effects loop.  It also
has a five band eq and reverb.  As far as overall sound, I prefer the
6L6s and the extreme clean sounds of the Rhythm I and the extreme
overdrive of the Lead.  It'll sustain for months!  It sounds good at both
ends of the spectrum, with many possibilities in between.

I am not affiliated with Mesa Engineering, except as a satisfied customer.

-- Bill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Luciw                      Voice: (408) 974-3845
Newton Products Group           Fax:   (408) 974-1794
Apple Computer, Inc.    
10300 Bubb Rd.  MS: 50-B        AppleLink:  Luciw
Cupertino, CA 95014             Internet:   luciw@apple.com

"If you label me, you negate me."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: whc2993@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
Subject: Which Eagle?
Date: 25 Sep 92 18:46:14 GMT
Reply-To: whc2993@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Does anyone know which member of the Eagles plays the solo on 'One of These
Nights'?  Short and to the point.
							


********************************************************************************
"The blues is a low down achein' chill"  Robert Johnson
********************************************************************************
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
Subject: Re: Help! Tension forces in the strings?
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:00:41 GMT
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

euanor@eua.ericsson.se (Patrik.Norman) writes:
>Hi,
>I'm very intrested about the tension forces in each sting,
>or an total average, for a normally tuned steel string guitar.
>Besides, I could use information about the difference in force
>between different thickness...
>
>Absolute best would be if anyone knew the matematical formula 
>for a vibrating string, with the tension force as one parameter.

     The speed of a wave in a string is given by v=sqrt(F/u), where
F is the tension and u is the density (mass per unit length) of the
string. The fundamental vibration of a string has a known frequency,
f (determined by the pitch), and a wavelength L = 2 * l, where l is the
length of the string (nut to saddle).

     f = v/L = sqrt(F/u)/(2*l)

     sqrt(F/u) = 2lf

     F/u = 4 (lf)^2

     F = 4u(lf)^2

     u and l can be measured, and f should be known.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
          This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
     "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
      persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.  Therefore all
      progress depends on the unreasonable man."
      -- George Bernard Shaw
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
From: jimi@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (james.d.wynn)
Subject: Help: Serial Number & Dates
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:18:44 GMT
Keywords: Gibson SG..


Hello ..

 I have a Gibson SG, 2 humbuckers, etc et c..
 I purchased it used , quite a few years ago.

Does any one have a listing of serial numbers for the SG models & year ??
Oh, let's say between the years '67-83-ish ..
 

thanks in advance ..

you could write to me or post here :

James D. Wynn
jjnjw@clockwise.att.com
From: plummer@den.mmc.com (Mike Plummer)
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
Subject: Guitar Necks, Oiled
Keywords: guitar necks
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:17:26 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Originator: plummer@shell


Hi folks,
	I'm an amateur luthier in my spare time and am now in the process of 
buiding a cutaway acoustic electric guitar for my brother-in-law.  In the
past I've always lacquered and polished the necks of my guitars, but lately
I've noticed necks with a dull finish in the music stores.  My brother-in-law
would like his neck done such.  If there are any other luthiers or guitar 
owners out there that might know how this is done, could you let me know 
what you think.  I believe there was a post a while back similar to this 
with one answer saying it was done with alchohol based lacquer.  I think
it might be done with oil or maybe lacquer not polished out.  What do you
think?

Mike Plummer
Fine woodworker, but struggling guitarist