"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that there
are
any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually be
effective in the majority of real accidents.

That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they are
under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are any.
They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the
extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet how
often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product advertisement?
There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a product
make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course, once
the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of
disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who are
smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.


If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".

Well, as a sales guy,

As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.

That's a funny statement.


Regardless, I am "realizing the intention of the demo" and you seem to be
berating me for it.

Berating? Geeze, I only made one comment and that was in direct response to
your comment.


Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in
error
could bring you to harm.


That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the
advertising in error? Or even misleading?

I did not claim that it was in error or misleading. I stated that one
should not, as a matter of principle, trust advertising if the advertising
being incorrect can bring one to harm. It's up to the advertiser to prove
that his advertising is accurate, not up to the consumer to disprove it.

I misunderstood your previous comment. Sorry.


--

-Mike-