J wrote:
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?
Huh? Where did I say that? If you look at the third line of this post you
will see that I said "If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new
saw . . ." The part that you snipped clearly indicates that the "that" in
that sentence was "pay $100 for a new Sawstop cartridge".
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.
Started what? I made a comment on a possible marketing strategy. Then you
come in here with all this bull**** about "false dilemmas" when it is clear
that your real problem is comprehension of the English language.
-j
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|