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


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



What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?

I don't really care what you personally believe.

Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty
of
a little rhetoric from time to time myself.

Huh? I don't recall stating in any post that I cared the slightest iota
what you thought about the Sawstop. In fact even if I had, your attitude
is making me care less and less.

My attitude? What exactly is "my attitude"? Througout this discourse you
are the one who has thrown sarcasm in. I merely left your sarcasm in the
included text in order to address the point or lack thereof that you posed.


Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's
not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact.
Even
if
that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not
an
advertising
error.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".

Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post,
so
somebody did indeed suggest that.

Well then take it up with them.

I believe I did.

Then why did you take it up with me?

Have you looked at the included text? It was your comment. It was included
in my reply.



Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are
not. They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of
injury.

Are they? Is the "form of injury" that they "address" in fact "common"?
Or
is that just your uninformed opinion?

Tag, you're it. I've already admitted that I had no statistical evidence on
my side and was only speaking from what I believed to be the case. Now -
you opinion is somehow more informed?


It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more
encompassing objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither
you nor I work for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what
the
objective of their product is.

If you don't work for them then why are you working so hard at defending
them?

I'm not - why are you working so hard to defame something you no nothing of
and have yet to present a credible argument against?


It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a
certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside
of
that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden
stop. Are they at all worthwhile?

I'm sorry, but you are once again going off on a tangent by assuming
without
any proof whatsoever that the circumstance in which the Sawstop is
effective is one that occurs commonly enough to be a matter of concern.

Your evidence? Besides your assertion, that is. You may have it for all I
know and if you do, I will be the first to acknowledge that and credit you
for being educated in that area. But... so far you haven't presented any,
just an objection to the product based on nothing.


Are there times when they do not
prevent
an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries
that
can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a
waste
of
time. All it does is define their application and their benefit.
Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce
injury.
If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that
objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced
injuries
in cars.

So how many injuries will it "reduce"? Do you have a number? Or just
more
hot air?

You are just being difficult John. I entered this discussion hoping for a
reasonable adult discussion and it's really clear from your contributions
that you don't share that hope. Go ahead, keep throwing a bunch of
irrelevant side tracks out there, all it does is demonstrate that you really
don't have anything to say, you just want to be difficult.


I'm sorry, but it's clear that you are more concerned with truth in
advertising than with safety. Which is what I expect from an incompetent
salesman who would rather spend time arguing with strangers on the
Internet
than serviceing his paying customers. That being the case it is
abundantly
clear that you have nothing to say that is worth my time to listen to.
G'day.

Clearly no clue. And just what are you doing? John, you have presented
yourself to be a complete ass in this entire discussion. You would **** to
know how successful I've been. You'd just hate salesmen all the more
because you'd have something more to be jealous of and resentful of. For
all of your "concern for safety", I didn't see your name on any patents for
safety devices. Yeah - all hot air and distractions, that's all you've
presented here. You're right - Good day.

--

-Mike-



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