Mike Marlow wrote:


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


"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.

This is not about the legal obligations of advertisers. They've made a
claim. I don't buy their claim. If you do that's your business.

You are certainly entitled not to buy their claim. But... it was you that
raised the strawman argument obligations and advertising. Reference you
quote above where you state that sawstop does not state their limitations,
or even suggest there are any.

I'm sorry, but you're the one raising the strawman--do yourself a favor and
don't waste your time trying to sell me anything--I don't respond to that
approach.

I did not say that they were "obligated" to do anything, I said that they
had not done certain things. It is you who are twisting that into some
kind of argument about "obligation".

Throughout this, I've never suggested or
stated that I buy any of their claims, that I believe in their product or
anything of the like. All I have done is question initially, why you
seemed to hold such a contrary opinion of the product

Contrary to what? I hold a _negative_ opinion of the product. That is only
"contrary" if the majority opinion is positive, which it does not appear to
be, at least not in this community.

and then
subesequently, I
responded to a series of red herrings and strawmen that you threw out.

Please quote these "red herrings and strawmen". The thing is being marketed
as being a safety device. That being the case it is legitimate to question
its effectiveness in that role.

So
far, you've really presented a pretty unconvincing argument,

I haven't presented any "argument" at all. I've questioned its utility.
And rather than addressing any question of utility you have kept on about
the obligations of advertisers. If anyone is presenting "red herrings and
straw men" it is you.

Let me reiterate--I don't give a hoot in Hell what they advertise or whether
they are obligated to advertise anything. I care whether the damned thing
works well enough to be useful. And their advertising has not made a
convincing case for this.

but that's ok
because I don't believe you were actually trying to convince anyone else
not
to buy a sawstop saw. Good thing.

If you want to buy one be my guest. But don't come crying to me when you
lose your hand in it.

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.

Says the sales guy with the vested interest in being trusted. How does
one
say "screw you" in Salesmanese? "Trust me".

Don't know much about sales do you?

More than you clearly. Because if the approach you are using is what you
call "salesmanship" then, well, if you had been in my office trying to sell
me something then about three posts back I would have made sure the door
hit you in the ass on the way out.

Another one you haven't learned. Don't argue with the customer. If he has
a low opinion of salesmen and your behavior reinforces that opinion, which
your behavior is doing, then you are _not_ going to get the sale.

But then again, it's always easier to
hang on some cliche - it has more rhetorical value.

Trust me.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)