In article , "Leon" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...
In article m, "Leon"
wrote:
Give up my freedom... No. That is a very broad term. I am only talking
about adding 1 more to the thousands of already government mandated
requirements.
So because the government has already overstepped its Constitutional
authority
a thousand times, it's OK for it to do so again? I think not.
Doug, I of course realise as well as you do that this is not the first
instance and certainly not the last. But I have come to terms with this and
realize there are far greater powers than me that rule and govern. I simply
try to get along as best I can and life has acceptably fair to me and my
family.
So if I may put it in a nutshell... because everything is going smoothly for
you personally, erosion of everyone's personal freedom doesn't worry you in
the least.
You are contemptible.
This certainly is not the first of or the last of these type proposals.
I
just happen to go along with it. You on the other hand choose not to go
along with it. That is OK with me.
Trouble is, you're advocating that government *remove* that freedom of
choice
from me.
I dont defend the actions of the government if they get involved in this
situation nor do I defend the the SawStop ethics, But they are doing this
legally and they have every right to. I simply advocate my right to my
voice my views.
Contradicting yourself again, I see.
This thread begain with Gary Milliorn's post describing $aw$top's action. Your
first post in the thread was an immediate, one-word followup: "Cool."
Yes. I would voluntarily give up my freedom to choose a TS with or with
out this feature.
Then go buy one. But don't demand that the rest of us give up our freedom
to
make the same choice.
I make no demands of anyone any more. Why do you think that I have the
power to control your freedom of choice. I am only 1 of millions.
You continue to argue that this device should be made mandatory, a position
equivalent to demanding that others give up their freedom to choose whether to
buy it or not.
That's it in a nut shell. If I have to sacrifice having a choice for
what I
would consider a better out come, I have no problem with that. I guess
this
is the beauty of living in the US. You have the freedom to voice your
preferences most of the time.
You don't have to sacrifice having a choice. Go buy one. Now. Then shut
up,
and let the rest of us decide _for_ourselves_ whether we want one too.
LOL....Now you are making decisions for me. If you truely feel this
strongly about this, start a petition against the SawStop and its tactics.
Don't just send in a form letter petition with your single name on it. Mail
it out to every one you know and get as many copies ans signatures as you
can and send them to the governmant. This is your right and I back you up
on your rights. Don't complain to me.
No, I'm not trying to make your decisions for you -- just pointing out the
logical consequences of your position, which you apparently haven't taken the
time to think through very carefully.
Now, changing the subject a bit and to give you an example of some thing
you
may or may not be aware of. My professional career was in the Automotive
industry. I was in upper management and successfully retired at age 40.
If
you recall back in the 80's the Freon used in automotive air conditioning
systems was called R-12. There was a big deal about this freon damaging
the
environment so a new type refrigerent was Mandated by the government so
that
the R-12 would be phased out. That is what the manufacturers wanted you
to
know.
Actually the patent for R-12 ran out for the manufacturer and every one
was
able to make it and sell it. The manufacturer lobbied and convinced that
govermant that the R-12 was damaging the environment and should be phased
out and replaced with a more friendly refrigerant which they already had
a
new patent on. Then the new refrigerant was introduced under a new
patent
and that company is all warm and fuzzy again. One problem with this is
that
while the new refrigerant is more friendly to the environmant, it is more
dangerous to be around if you are a human being. If you will notice,
with
the new refrigerent, mechanics are required if possible to recapture the
freon gas if he has to open up the AC system. This is mostly for his
long
term health. If the new Freon gas is so much friendlier, why not let it
excape into the atmosphere like the old freon gas was allowed to do.
Now this is a great example of a manufacturer making up a reason to
require
the government to become involved. No one really benefits from this
mandate
expept the manufacturer.
Yeah, it would be a great example if it were true, but it's not. This
account
is absolute nonsense.
Humm I read several doccuments and articles in the mid 80's backing up my
Mid-80s is a decade late. Concerns were raised about the effects of CFCs on
the ozone layer as early as 1974.
comments from the Automotive Business News priodicals that out business
There's a reliable source of scientific information, I'm sure...
suscribed to... Kinda backed up why the thousands of bottles of R-12 we
were wholesaling was not being manufactured in the US any more.
Unfortunately this all happened before anyone realized it..and it was too
late.
Not true at all. The ecologists and chemists knew what was going on. It took
ten or fifteen years before any of the politicians would listen to them.
The initiative to ban chlorofluorocarbons started with ecologists and
organic chemists, not with refrigerant manufacturers.
That is absolutely correct but it gave the original patent holder a reason
to change formulas and get a new patent.
And
that's what it was at the beginnig, too -- an attempt to ban *all* CFCs,
not
just one or two specific refrigerants, because they *do* destroy the ozone
layer. Recapture of the new refrigerants is required by law for protection
of
the atmosphere, not mechanics.
Seems odd that our Oldsmobile dealership never had to recapture the R-12,
only the new refrigerant.
That's because the law didn't require recovery of *any* refrigerant at the
time that R-12 was in use.
AFAIK, there _never_was_ a time during which the
law required recovery of the new refrigerants but allowed release of R-12. The
law which requires refrigerant recovery does not distinguish between types.
You can believe what you want but the new refrigerent introduced in the mid
to late 80's was harmful to humans.
So's Freon.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW