If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw, then the answer
is
obvious.

Why would that be the only choice? Do you buy a new saw when you have
an accident on it?

If the accident does $100 worth of damage to the saw then the choice is
to
pay the $100 to fix it or to get a new saw. Same situation.

??? really?

Yes, really. The sawstop fires, you now have a saw that won't run until
you
fix it, same as if anything else went wrong with it.

I thought you said the choice was to buy a new saw for $1600? That is why I
said really.
Which one is it?

An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and
jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot
while
you are sleeping.

How is that an "equally valid choice"? It makes absolutely no sense as
an analogy.

Hey! That is what I was trying to say!

What is what you were trying to say?

I hate false dilemmas.

What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then
the
choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for
whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or
don't
saw. I don't see another option.

Now you offer 4 choices. You understand that this proves that the first
post with only two choices was a false dilemma, don't you?

I understand that you seem more interested in the cleverness of your own
argument than in any kind of discourse.

Life's too short.

You started it.

-j