Tom Watson wrote:

: When I cut solid stock, particularly "interesting" stock that may be
: reaction wood and needs a bit of visual monitoring, I take the guard
: off.


But this is irrational. Reaction wood is dangerous because it
can twist and bind against the blade and/or fence, and cause
kickback and kickup. With a splitter and guard you have protection
against this. Whithout them you just plain don't.



: If the accumulated wisdom of my senses tells me to bail on that cut, I
: want to be able to shut that saw down with a clear understanding of
: the problem that made that necessary.

You don't seem to understand how rapidly kickback occurs, when it
does occur.


: The mind is the best and most appropriate safety device.


No one is saying it isn't. Just as it's the most appropriate
safety device when driving. That doesn't negate the
actual, verifiable safety advantages of wearing a seatbelt.


: I understand that when talking on the Wreck we are addressing multiple
: understandings of the process and multiple levels of experience.

: I would simply like to preach the gospel of mind as the premier safety
: device, as slavish dependence on contrivances does not answer fully.


Sure. But you're solving the equation wrong. Attendant
mind + guards/igs/splitters outsafties attendant mind alone.


You sound like one of those people (and I've known a bunch) who don't
wear seatbelts in cars (they want to, variously: be able to
get to the other side to avoid a side collision; get out of a burning car;
be thrown free [through the windshield] instead of stuck in a wreck), and
don't wear helmets on a motorcycle (they impair vision!!!).

Doesn't make it smart.


-- Andy Barss