"Leon" wrote in message
.. .

"BB" wrote in message news:%qyEg.8990$5M.505@trnddc02...

Actually it is based on your sample of "one" which is not statistically
valid. . .

Say what you want. It is a real statistic compared to all of your
assumbtions.

Did you ever study statistics? A sample size of one is statistically not
valid when compared to the millions of saws out there. . .


Yes I would like insurance premiums to decrease but to do that we need
to
get rid of all the lawyers. Do you know how much of the price of a
ladder
is
due to the liability insurance the manufacturer has to pay?

The cost if every thing is affect by something. You either agree to pay
or
you don't.

There seems to be an inabilty to link cause and effect here. . .


I do know that using it safely will reduce the chance of injury but not
necessarily remove it entirely. But life is full of risks - I could slip
in
the shower, get hit walking to the mailbox, get struck by lightening,
shot
is a drive by shooting. . . et al. I refuse to become paranoid about
"something that MIGHT happen to me".

So you own absolutely no health home or auto insurance?

I have insurance but insurance to to protect against losses you cannot
afford to pay for yourself - it is not to make one "whole".



I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I
can
buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about -
cancer
caused by tobacco kills how many people a year?

Did you buy your TS new? If so you bought a guard that the government
requires it to have.

The guard was a POS and was removed. Even use of a (good) guard does not
remove all danger.

Did you chang you mind? First you refuse to allow the government to tell
you what kind of saw to buy, next you let some things through as
acknowledged by the fact that you bought a saw with a required guard.
I agree that nothing is going to cover all instances regarding safety.

You logic is slipping here - All new tablesaws come with guards. I needed a
table saw so I bought one. My decision to buy was not based on the type of
guard it had on it nor the fact that the government required it have one.



I feel that government is too intrusive. I am not a socialist - history
shows that it is ultimately unworkable. You seem to have a belief that
government can solve all the problems. The recent fiasco with the TSA
and
operating from fear not logic is getting a bit old.

I do not seem to think that government can solve all things. I simply
think
that of all the things that the government gets involved in, this
particular
situation is a good one.

You fail to connect the dots here. Your idea of a nanny government is not
workable. It is impossible to reduce the possibility of injury to 0% even
with a Sawstop since statistics indicate that at some point in time it will
fail to operate properly. As I stated previously intelligent proper use of a
TS will minimize risk to acceptable levels.


Roughly 45,000 people die in
the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve
drinking
and
driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high
for
things that require government interference. . .

What's your point?

If you cannot get it then doubt it would do much good to explain. . .

Well certainly you are not suggesting that the government get involved
with
practicing medicine.

Do you read English? What does practicing medicine have to do with traffic
accidents and drinking and driving?

BB

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..

"BB" wrote in message news:_vyEg.9026$5M.453@trnddc02...


Adding the $250 required to as the feature PLUS the royalty is a deal
buster
since it mean they would be getting $20 per saw just from the $250 in
additional parts cost.

Perhaps a deal breaker for you, but not of others.

You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When you
start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it tooth
and nail since it is stupid.

Good the see that the Sawstop boys are not greedy or
anything.

Yeah, the deal seems reasonable to me.

So you either work for Sawstop or you own stock???

Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to
operate
properly.

It could tahe that path or maybe not.

You seem to be a bit naive in how business works and legal contracts are
made. . .

It seems quite clear that the reason the saw makers decided not to use
it
was due to that fact that it made NO SENSE financially.

And that very well may be their problem. Most every one does not like the
path that Delta is being taken down.

NO manufacturer has done a deal with them period. Why not? It is simply not
going to do anything but kill sales to suddenly add $300-400 to the price of
an already expensive piece of equipment. . .

BB

"BB" wrote in message
You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When you
start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it
tooth
and nail since it is stupid.

What is stupid, the government requiring the SS or the SS device itself?

If you mean part one, I can agree,
If you mean part two, I don't agree

In article , Leon
wrote:

As a side note, because the government no longer regulates electricity
prices in Houston and much of Texas I now pay 50% more for electricity this
year than I did last year.

The government not setting the price is not the same as actual
deregulation. The government regulates electricity: you can't buy it on
the free market, because the government dictates who may run wires to
your house, who can generate electricity, who can put lines on the the
poles, etc.

Government involvement causes that 50% increase, and more.

Kevin

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:8SIEg.3074$df.3017@trndny06...

"BB" wrote in message
You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When
you
start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it
tooth
and nail since it is stupid.

What is stupid, the government requiring the SS or the SS device itself?

If you mean part one, I can agree,
If you mean part two, I don't agree

The government requiring it on all saws. . . The device seems to work so I
have no problems with it just those who take the position the government
should require it on all saws. . .

BB

"Kevin Craig" wrote in message
...
In article , Leon
wrote:

As a side note, because the government no longer regulates electricity
prices in Houston and much of Texas I now pay 50% more for electricity
this
year than I did last year.

The government not setting the price is not the same as actual
deregulation. The government regulates electricity: you can't buy it on
the free market, because the government dictates who may run wires to
your house, who can generate electricity, who can put lines on the the
poles, etc.

Government involvement causes that 50% increase, and more.

Kevin

The city government did regulate the price of electricity and we could only
buy the electricity from one place. With deregulation, we can buy from any
where "in" Texas. Our electricity rates went up 50% with deregulation.

"BB" wrote in message news:w7HEg.12762$Z1.6580@trnddc03...

You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When you
start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it
tooth
and nail since it is stupid.

Have you been fighting this already? It appears tha the government might
require it.



So you either work for Sawstop or you own stock???

Anouter uninformed assumption.


Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to
operate
properly.

It could tahe that path or maybe not.

You seem to be a bit naive in how business works and legal contracts are
made. . .

I do not claim to know all and cannot always accurately predict the future.



NO manufacturer has done a deal with them period. Why not? It is simply
not
going to do anything but kill sales to suddenly add $300-400 to the price
of
an already expensive piece of equipment. . .

Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be killed.
Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?

"BB" wrote in message news:93HEg.12761$Z1.4065@trnddc03...

Did you ever study statistics? A sample size of one is statistically not
valid when compared to the millions of saws out there. . .

In college 33 years ago. If you think that I am the only case you are
sadily mistaken.




There seems to be an inabilty to link cause and effect here. . .

Apparently and you still don't seem to get it.



I refuse to become paranoid about "something that MIGHT happen to me".

So you own absolutely no health home or auto insurance?

I have insurance but insurance to to protect against losses you cannot
afford to pay for yourself - it is not to make one "whole".

Changing you mind again? Having insurance sure sounds like you are afraid
of what migh thappen to me.


Did you chang you mind? First you refuse to allow the government to tell
you what kind of saw to buy, next you let some things through as
acknowledged by the fact that you bought a saw with a required guard.
I agree that nothing is going to cover all instances regarding safety.

You logic is slipping here - All new tablesaws come with guards. I needed
a
table saw so I bought one. My decision to buy was not based on the type of
guard it had on it nor the fact that the government required it have one.

Well then you should not have a problem with a better safety device if it
becomes mandated since the guard that came on your saw was later added as
standard like a better device may become standard.



You fail to connect the dots here. Your idea of a nanny government is not
workable. It is impossible to reduce the possibility of injury to 0% even
with a Sawstop since statistics indicate that at some point in time it
will
fail to operate properly. As I stated previously intelligent proper use of
a
TS will minimize risk to acceptable levels.


You seem to know left and right pretty well do you understand in between?


Well certainly you are not suggesting that the government get involved
with
practicing medicine.

Do you read English? What does practicing medicine have to do with traffic
accidents and drinking and driving?

Let me quote you here,
I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
caused by tobacco

I read that as you think the government is not doing enough about cancer
caused by tobacco. What more do you want them to do? Why can't I express
my openion about the SawStop while you tbelieve that the government should
be doing more to cure cancer.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:02:29 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:






I'm sorry, but WTF does this have to do with the discussion? The
calculator is an elctronic device almost in its entirety and the cost
came down because of the ability to produce semiconductor chips at
etrememly low cost per unit.

You said,
Now I don't care how many are
made, the cost of the sawstop will never get below a lowend tablesaw
cost and the structure required to simply put this type of feature on
a saw is way beyond the structure of a benchtop saw.


The same can happen with the SawStop device. Who would have dreamed there
would be $100 table saws these days? Comnpetition does wonders for pricing.


SNIP



BTW I cannot concieve of any way that you could redesign my saw, a
Shopsmith, to accept such a device and Shopsmith (already a very niche
market company with financial issues) would simply go out of business.
Dayton Ohio would lose jobs.

If Shopsmith is already in financial trouble then the writing is on the
wall. The threat of the SawStop technology is not at fault.



I think I said "financial issues" not "in financial trouble". They
have had financial issues for the last 15 to 20 years with few
profitable years in that time and they have shrunk (try to find a
Shopsmith retail store - they don't exist anymore except for the
factory store in Dayton). However, they have stayed in business and
have provided jobs in Dayton (and a few traveling sales/demonstration
people) for all of those years. I am sure that those employees will be
happy that you wrote off their livelyhood so cavalierly.

You say tomato I say tomatto. You do not down size because you finances are
doing well. I'd say that Shopsmith is in trouble unless they start selling
more. You have to change with the times or be left behind.


I am not against
resonable safety requirements. I don't support eliminating guards, (or
seat belts for that matter) but it can go too far and in my opinion
mandating sawstop technology is really going too far.

I respect you opinion even if it differs from mine.

"Leon" wrote in message
t...

"BB" wrote in message news:w7HEg.12762$Z1.6580@trnddc03...

You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When
you
start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it
tooth
and nail since it is stupid.

Have you been fighting this already? It appears tha the government might
require it.

Only because of idiots like you that want to involve the government in
everything . . . gee let me guess a Democrat perchance?

So you either work for Sawstop or you own stock???

Anouter uninformed assumption.

You have been advocating it from the get go. . . You fail to understand the
economics of how requiring it would be expense for saw owners and new buyers
(I doubt the lower insurance would even come close to covering the added
equipment cost)

Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to
operate
properly.

It could tahe that path or maybe not.

You seem to be a bit naive in how business works and legal contracts are
made. . .

I do not claim to know all and cannot always accurately predict the
future.



NO manufacturer has done a deal with them period. Why not? It is simply
not
going to do anything but kill sales to suddenly add $300-400 to the
price
of
an already expensive piece of equipment. . .

Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be
killed.
Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?

You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are an
OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.

"Leon" wrote in message
t...

"BB" wrote in message news:93HEg.12761$Z1.4065@trnddc03...

Did you ever study statistics? A sample size of one is statistically not
valid when compared to the millions of saws out there. . .

In college 33 years ago. If you think that I am the only case you are
sadily mistaken.

You cited excactly one case - yours. . .

There seems to be an inabilty to link cause and effect here. . .

Apparently and you still don't seem to get it.

Huh?

I refuse to become paranoid about "something that MIGHT happen to me".

So you own absolutely no health home or auto insurance?

I have insurance but insurance to to protect against losses you cannot
afford to pay for yourself - it is not to make one "whole".

Changing you mind again? Having insurance sure sounds like you are
afraid
of what migh thappen to me.

Huh? Time for a reality check here - I never changed my mind - you seem
incapable of understanding plain English.

Insurance is for risk mitigation not elimination -

If the government mandated that all makers use Sawstops then the company
would suddenly become very rich since it holds the sole patent for such
devices. Their royalty pricing is onerous to say the least. Low end saws
would disappear and prices for all saws would rise by LARGE amounts. As a
result a few fingers might be saved. . . Well yes sign me up since I love to
pay for the stuipidity of others. . . I think not. . .


Did you chang you mind? First you refuse to allow the government to
tell
you what kind of saw to buy, next you let some things through as
acknowledged by the fact that you bought a saw with a required guard.
I agree that nothing is going to cover all instances regarding safety.

You logic is slipping here - All new tablesaws come with guards. I
needed
a
table saw so I bought one. My decision to buy was not based on the type
of
guard it had on it nor the fact that the government required it have
one.

Well then you should not have a problem with a better safety device if it
becomes mandated since the guard that came on your saw was later added as
standard like a better device may become standard.

Sorry your logic is failing again - the guard I removed on my saw probably
cost about $10-15 and did not impact the overall price very much unlike what
mandating the SS would do.

You fail to connect the dots here. Your idea of a nanny government is
not
workable. It is impossible to reduce the possibility of injury to 0%
even
with a Sawstop since statistics indicate that at some point in time it
will
fail to operate properly. As I stated previously intelligent proper use
of
a
TS will minimize risk to acceptable levels.

You seem to know left and right pretty well do you understand in between?

Yes I do but it is obivious that you do not. . .

Well certainly you are not suggesting that the government get involved
with
practicing medicine.

Do you read English? What does practicing medicine have to do with
traffic
accidents and drinking and driving?

Let me quote you here,
I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
caused by tobacco

I read that as you think the government is not doing enough about cancer
caused by tobacco. What more do you want them to do? Why can't I
express
my openion about the SawStop while you tbelieve that the government should
be doing more to cure cancer.

Sigh - you are living proof of why some people should not be allowed near
power tools. What I said was "why should the government worry about a few
missing digits when people are dying from their inaction in other areas."

You are free to express your opinion about how wonderful SawStop is - I am
not trying to stop you. I have not trashed the product. From what I have
read it seems to work but I do question their onerous royalty pricing
structure.

A government mandate to install them on all saws would not work from a
practical or economical point and your continued instance that they should
is illogical and incorrect.

BB

"BB" wrote in message news:_oNEg.62678$hH1.37333@trnddc08...

Only because of idiots like you that want to involve the government in
everything . . . gee let me guess a Democrat perchance?


Well you started the name calling. The possibility of an intelligent
conversation with you just came to an end.

Someone somewhere wrote:
...snipped...

Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be killed.
Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?


People didn't stop buying gasoline but they bought less of it. In the
case of gasoline the suppliers are selling less but making _more_ money.
In the case of saws with saw stops, the manufacturers will be selling
fewer saws and making _less_ money.

While I'm posting, I might as well add...

Air bags do save lives. However, a 6 point safety harness and a crash
helmet for each driver and passenger would cost less than equipping a
car with air bags and save even more lives. Perhaps the government
should require it.

Just think how much safer a motorcycle would be... If it had 2 more
wheels! Perhaps the government should require it.

Does anyone know if a sawstop saw can run a dado blade?

Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
government should require it.

A swimming pool that was, say, 4 feet max depth would no doubt be
safer than a pool that had a max depth of 12 feet. The 4 foot pool
would save lives. Perhaps the government should require it.




--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

In article , Leon
wrote:

"Kevin Craig" wrote in message
...
Government involvement causes that 50% increase, and more.

Kevin

The city government did regulate the price of electricity and we could only
buy the electricity from one place. With deregulation, we can buy from any
where "in" Texas. Our electricity rates went up 50% with deregulation.

Ah, but you *can't* buy from anywhere in Texas.

If you wanted to buy from me, I could not plug my generator into the
grid near Texarkana, and then get paid by you.

You can only buy from certain electricity producers. And every one of
those producers is heavily regulated. The only thing that stopped, was
the city setting the price of electricity. That is *not* deregulation.

(Sorry for this off-topic aside!)

Kevin

wrote:
Someone somewhere wrote:
...snipped...
Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be killed.
Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?


People didn't stop buying gasoline but they bought less of it. In the
case of gasoline the suppliers are selling less but making _more_ money.
In the case of saws with saw stops, the manufacturers will be selling
fewer saws and making _less_ money.

While I'm posting, I might as well add...

Air bags do save lives. However, a 6 point safety harness and a crash
helmet for each driver and passenger would cost less than equipping a
car with air bags and save even more lives. Perhaps the government
should require it.

Just think how much safer a motorcycle would be... If it had 2 more
wheels! Perhaps the government should require it.

Does anyone know if a sawstop saw can run a dado blade?

Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
government should require it.

A swimming pool that was, say, 4 feet max depth would no doubt be
safer than a pool that had a max depth of 12 feet. The 4 foot pool
would save lives. Perhaps the government should require it.




The dado blade requires a separate cartridge
http://sawstop.com/products-cabinet-saw-accessories.htm

Can I get a waiver on that 55mph limit? at 57 mph I get better mileage
in my Civic hybrid.
Joe

wrote in message
...
Someone somewhere wrote:
...snipped...

Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be
killed.
Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?


People didn't stop buying gasoline but they bought less of it. In the
case of gasoline the suppliers are selling less but making _more_ money.
In the case of saws with saw stops, the manufacturers will be selling
fewer saws and making _less_ money.

While I'm posting, I might as well add...

Air bags do save lives. However, a 6 point safety harness and a crash
helmet for each driver and passenger would cost less than equipping a
car with air bags and save even more lives. Perhaps the government
should require it.

Just think how much safer a motorcycle would be... If it had 2 more
wheels! Perhaps the government should require it.

Does anyone know if a sawstop saw can run a dado blade?

Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
government should require it.

A swimming pool that was, say, 4 feet max depth would no doubt be
safer than a pool that had a max depth of 12 feet. The 4 foot pool
would save lives. Perhaps the government should require it.




--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland



You'd be surprised...

We got a down check once on a safety inspection here for not have a written
start-up procedure for a power tool..... a cordless drill.

We also didn't have a published "Hot work" (welding etc) policy... despite
not doing any hot work.

IMHO - one of the biggest safety risks is government regulations that turn
safety into a joke (which it isn't). Safety is at risk when people lose
respect for the rules, or the process. The nature of regulation (and
liability) is to cater to the lowest common denominator, and that isn't
going to change.

Cheers -

Rob

(working where a band-aid has to be "dispensed" by trained staff)

"Kevin Craig" wrote in message
...


Ah, but you *can't* buy from anywhere in Texas.

If you wanted to buy from me, I could not plug my generator into the
grid near Texarkana, and then get paid by you.

You can only buy from certain electricity producers. And every one of
those producers is heavily regulated. The only thing that stopped, was
the city setting the price of electricity. That is *not* deregulation.

(Sorry for this off-topic aside!)

Kevin


OK, correct I was not exactly correct in how I stated who I can buy from in
Texas. The shame of it all and certainly the reason that prices have gone
up instead of down is that Texans cannot buy electricity from any where but
Texas. Apparently Texas is unique in that it is not connected to the grid
outside of Texas.

wrote in message
...

People didn't stop buying gasoline but they bought less of it. In the
case of gasoline the suppliers are selling less but making _more_ money.

Probably true. But if you lived in Houston that would be hard to prove.
LOL.. I think more people are speeding since the price of gasoline went up
and the stations certainly are still busy.

In the case of saws with saw stops, the manufacturers will be selling
fewer saws and making _less_ money.

Maybe, there is the possibility that pricing may deter some from buying
however there may be some that were reluctant to switch from a BS because it
safer to operate for some cutting operations than a TS. If the TS suddenly
removes a lot of risk TS sales may in fact increase. The Minimax instructor
told me that he only used the TS when the BS could not make the cut and
stated safety reasons. Not that this particular reasoning would play out
but it certainly is a posibility.


While I'm posting, I might as well add...

Air bags do save lives. However, a 6 point safety harness and a crash
helmet for each driver and passenger would cost less than equipping a
car with air bags and save even more lives. Perhaps the government
should require it.

Perhaps. If you are into organized racing, it is required although not by
the government.


Just think how much safer a motorcycle would be... If it had 2 more
wheels! Perhaps the government should require it.

Aw, well then it would not technically be a motorcycle any more.


Does anyone know if a sawstop saw can run a dado blade?

Yes, It can.


Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
government should require it.

Well, in a way the government has been requiring a vehivle to not go over 55
in certain areas for years, are you against driving the speed limit?


A swimming pool that was, say, 4 feet max depth would no doubt be
safer than a pool that had a max depth of 12 feet. The 4 foot pool
would save lives. Perhaps the government should require it.

Well a person can drown in 6" of water, might as well go for that.
Additionally the government does require secure fencing around a pool in
some areas regardless of pool depth.

With anything you can take everything to an extreme.
IMHO, of all the government regulated situations, many of which I agree with
and many I do not, I think that making the SawStop technology mandatory
would not be a bad thing. Plain and simple.
You may have valid reasons for the opposite position. We disagree, on this
subject. NO big deal. Freedom of speech right? I have that right, you
have that right, although you may not like that because the government has
its nose in protecting our freedom of speech also.


On a different note, the city government in Houston has recently started
using traffic cameras to monitor and take pictures of vehicles running red
lights. It is about a 50/50 mix as to whether you are for it or whether you
are against it. Most against it are claiming, invasion of privacy, that it
is just another way of generation more revenue for the city, higher taxes to
get the system up and running, some one else may be driving my car when the
car runs a red light, and the list goes on. At first I was against it. Now
I am all for it considering that if it can help prevent 4 to 5 cars from
running the light almost every time the light changes to red in many
locations, it will probably save lives. I had to stop thinking about how it
would just affect me. While many people are clueless how many TS accidents
that there actually are, one test intersection in Houston recorded more than
600 violations the first month that the camera was in operation and those
were only the ones that the camera caught.
I suspect that it may only be capable of catching 1 at a time and may miss
the other 3 or 4 that were behind the lead car.


IMHO the cameras are good as they may very well save my life one day and
auto insurance premiums in Harris county may go down as a result of fewer
accidents caused by motorists running red lights. There is a reason that
Houston has higher auto insurance rates than most anywhere else and even if
you do not live in the area, if you use the same auto insurance company you
are indeed paying higher rates than necessary because of the amount of
accidents every day in Houston. Do you recall people complaining about
homeowners insurance rates and flood insurance rates and taxes going up to
cover damage caused by Katrina even though they live no where near the
coast and have had no claims?

"BB" wrote

You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are an
OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.

driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk, or
go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I still
know people that don't drive cars.

Gary

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

"BB" wrote in message
news:_oNEg.62678$hH1.37333@trnddc08...

Only because of idiots like you that want to involve the government in
everything . . . gee let me guess a Democrat perchance?


Well you started the name calling. The possibility of an intelligent
conversation with you just came to an end.
was that because he called you and idiot or a Democrat?

Gary (humour is everywhere)

"GeeDubb" wrote in message
m...

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

"BB" wrote in message
news:_oNEg.62678$hH1.37333@trnddc08...

Only because of idiots like you that want to involve the government in
everything . . . gee let me guess a Democrat perchance?


Well you started the name calling. The possibility of an intelligent
conversation with you just came to an end.

was that because he called you and idiot or a Democrat?

Idiot, LOL I am not a Democrat or Republican. I believe both parties are
equally right and wrong. No one is right all the time. I lean right
however. I do disagree with "most" government involvement. Not every one
agrees with my opinions. All my life, not every one has agreed with my
opinion. The same holds true for every one else. At a young age I learned
to get past that, some however, have not.

"GeeDubb" wrote in message
m...

"BB" wrote

You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are an
OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.

driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk, or
go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I
still know people that don't drive cars.

Exactly, you have to open your eyes to the big picture. Be a bit more open
minded if you dare. Do not be held captive by refusing to see other ways to
accomplish something.

"GeeDubb" wrote in message
m...

"BB" wrote

You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are
an
OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.

driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk, or
go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I
still
know people that don't drive cars.

Perhaps it is an option for you and others who live close to their work or a
transit system not to drive but the majority of people need a car to go to
work. . .

BB

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

"GeeDubb" wrote in message
m...

"BB" wrote

You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are
an
OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.

driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk,
or
go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I
still know people that don't drive cars.

Exactly, you have to open your eyes to the big picture. Be a bit more
open
minded if you dare. Do not be held captive by refusing to see other ways
to
accomplish something.

Hmm - the big picture - what part of the big picture are you referring to
when you single mindedly propose the government mandate SawStops? A certain
rise in the price of saws? Possible loss of jobs since fewer saws are
purchased? Even more offshore sourcing of products since the need to cut
costs means it is cheaper to make everything overseas? Increased costs to
use a saw since a single mis-fire will mean a new cartridge $$$, and a new
saw blade $$$. The list goes on. . .

BB

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:28:19 GMT, "BB" wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
om...

"GeeDubb" wrote in message
m...

"BB" wrote

You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are
an
OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.

driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk,
or
go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I
still know people that don't drive cars.

Exactly, you have to open your eyes to the big picture. Be a bit more
open
minded if you dare. Do not be held captive by refusing to see other ways
to
accomplish something.

Hmm - the big picture - what part of the big picture are you referring to
when you single mindedly propose the government mandate SawStops? A certain
rise in the price of saws? Possible loss of jobs since fewer saws are
purchased? Even more offshore sourcing of products since the need to cut
costs means it is cheaper to make everything overseas? Increased costs to
use a saw since a single mis-fire will mean a new cartridge $$$, and a new
saw blade $$$. The list goes on. . .

BB

Very thoughtful, to the point and well stated.
Fortunately, I find it doubtful that there will ever be such a
mandate. We can only imagine the strength of the lobby respresenting
the big tool corporations. I believe the *victory* in this case was
based on a bunch of engineers making a recommendation. I believe there
will be a long road to mandate from there.
If the cost factors that have been posted in here are correct that is
enogh to kill this right there. My guess is that after years of
wrangling we will end up with slightly tightened regulations. IMO,
that will be right around the same time that SS is selling off assets
to avoid Chapter-11.
A table saw is a very safe piece of equipment when operated properly.
Adherence to some very simple guidelines and procedures will fully
ensure one can operate the saw safely.
The seat belt argument does not, in any way, provide a fair comparison
to the current T/S debate. Driving an automobile out on the streets
subjects the operator to errors and mistakes by other drivers.
Conversely, the safety of operating a T/S is completely in the hands
of the operator.

"BB" wrote in message news:2H0Fg.9121$9v1.912@trnddc07...

"GeeDubb" wrote in message
m...

"BB" wrote

You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are
an
OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.

driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk,
or
go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I
still
know people that don't drive cars.

Perhaps it is an option for you and others who live close to their work or
a
transit system not to drive but the majority of people need a car to go to
work. . .

BB



That's because they choose (option) to live far from work. It's all about
priorities. I choose to be a carpenter requiring me to own a big a&& truck
to carry all my tools. When I was an engineer I rode my bike to work though
it was only ten miles it usually only took me 15 minutes longer to ride my
bike than driving....because everybody else made the optional choice to
drive a car.

as for the saw stop, I'm not for inclusion of the device on every saw as I'm
still ticked off about safety requirements mandated on lawn mowers. The
price of the ss would drastically drop if it was so required due to the
quantity required. In about 5 more years (less time than the gov. can move
to get it included) I believe the patent will be up and you'll see
aftermarket stuff and chiwanese knockoffs of the product anyway.

Like everything I write...JMO
Gary

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:55:45 -0500,
() wrote:

Someone somewhere wrote:
...snipped...
..snip.
/lurk
Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
government should require it.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-346es.html

lurk

"George Shouse" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:55:45 -0500,
() wrote:



http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-346es.html


Now that is Ironical. ;~)

"BB" wrote in message

Perhaps it is an option for you and others who live close to their work or
a
transit system not to drive but the majority of people need a car to go to
work. . .

BB

It is still an option. I can name many people, some in my own family, that
have never had a driving license in their lives. I can do the same if I
choose to, but jobs in my walking area don't pay what I make so I choose to
drive every day, 52 miles. There are people that still choose to live in
the city so they do not need a car.

The way gas prices are going, you may soon find the pay cut to be worth it.
Personally, I have a twenty minute rule. If I have to drive more than twenty
minutes to get to a place, I don't work there.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:KwjFg.1$6s.0@trndny08...

It is still an option. I can name many people, some in my own family,
that
have never had a driving license in their lives. I can do the same if I
choose to, but jobs in my walking area don't pay what I make so I choose
to
drive every day, 52 miles. There are people that still choose to live in
the city so they do not need a car.