Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
...


I challenge anyone to cite a documented accident that occurred while
proper procedure was being followed - hint: there are none.


That is soooooo bogus.

I challenge anyone to cite a time where proper procedure is being used 100%
of the time.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

It's all right as long as someone else has also done it, is that what you're
saying?

wrote in message
...

Eton/Cutler Hammer has done a similar thing with AFCIs

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"CW" wrote in message news:LxNMg.17220
It's all right as long as someone else has also done it, is that what
you're
saying?

I'd guess that he's saying it's not as big a (distasteful word here) as many
are making it out to be. With some of the money fiascos and greed that's
gone on the last several years with top CEO's raiding the companies that
they're supposed to support (insert Enron here), this ranks in the much
lower levels of corporate greed.

Fine, you don't like it and many don't, but let's be honest here. It *is*
perfectly legal and anyway you want to slice it, there are obvious benefits
to this technology, however it comes to the market.

That's my take on it anyway.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

Moral relativism to the rescue. Sounds like the politicians we have now.
They no longer campaign on their strengths, it's all "sure I'm slime but
he's worse".

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"CW" wrote in message news:LxNMg.17220
It's all right as long as someone else has also done it, is that what
you're
saying?

I'd guess that he's saying it's not as big a (distasteful word here) as
many
are making it out to be. With some of the money fiascos and greed that's
gone on the last several years with top CEO's raiding the companies that
they're supposed to support (insert Enron here), this ranks in the much
lower levels of corporate greed.

Fine, you don't like it and many don't, but let's be honest here. It *is*
perfectly legal and anyway you want to slice it, there are obvious
benefits
to this technology, however it comes to the market.

That's my take on it anyway.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"CW" wrote in message
Moral relativism to the rescue. Sounds like the politicians we have now.
They no longer campaign on their strengths, it's all "sure I'm slime but
he's worse".

Sure you're right, but in all honesty with *some* of what's been seen and
experienced, most can't put the time or energy needed into dealing with this
disagreeable trend. There's just too much other bull**** out there that
dwarfs this tempest in a teapot. Sad to say, but that's the way it is and
likely to remain for some time to come.

I don't know about you, but I'm honest enough with myself to admit that
there's some things that I should be forced to do that would benefit me that
I just won't do on my own. Is this one of them? Well, it's just not a big
enough factor in my life for me to give it the attention it might deserve.
And, I'm definitely not a "freedom of choice at all costs" person. I have a
distinct problem with people who use that "freedom of choice under any
circumstance" to take part in activities that have every chance of hurting
them, especially when it's the rest of the system that is going to pick up
the cost for that injury. With government cutbacks in all segments of our
society, there's too many other areas that go without due to our taking
advantage of that "freedom at all costs". MHO

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 01:18:27 GMT, "The Other Funk"
wrote:

Finding the keyboard operational
Joe Bemier entered:


It's a slick invention, no doubt. But, personally, I can't agree with
the course of mandating the technology, unless it was at a price that
did not make much difference, i.e., $100 at retail.

Joe, we are going to see more and more SawStop equiped shops as the
insurance industry forces it upon the commercial sector. Then the saw mfrs
insurance companies will insist on it. It's going to be market driven not
legislated. Which means that the price will be all the market an bear.
Bob

--?
--?
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

As much as it bothers me I believe you are right, Bob. Its progress, I
guess.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:16:29 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 05:37:03 -0400, Joe Bemier
wrote:

Well, I guess thats tongue in cheek, right? It would be possible to
locate a documented case of someone having an accident while following
procedure if there were any. But, your challenge is unobtainable.

The point is that it's irrelevant. A human being by definition makes
mistakes and has bad days Even with this in place people will still
manage to use bad judgement and make a cut with it in the override
position for no good reason.

I personally have a scar on my right index finger at the first knuckle
from at incident at the band saw. I was using a push stick. I
thought I was being safe. However the fence I was using was not high
enough, and thus I had to push with the push stick down lower than I
wanted to, to keep the stock flat against the fence. This resulted in
the stock lifting up behind the blade. And while I was distracted by
that the cut completed before I expected and my hand slipped forward
and caught a bit of the blade. It's obvious to me now that my fence
was insufficient and I was using the wrong type of push stick for the
job, but the fact is that I had used that combination safely before
and it was only due to the stock being an inch or so higher that a
series of events led to injury.

Close enough for your challenge?


-Leuf

I'm happy to hear that you have a scar to look at instead of an empty
digit space. Otherwise, I'll let it rest because we are not really
getting anywhere.

Cheers,
J

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Upscale" wrote in message

And, I'm definitely not a "freedom of choice at all costs" person. I have
a
distinct problem with people who use that "freedom of choice under any
circumstance" to take part in activities that have every chance of hurting
them, especially when it's the rest of the system that is going to pick up
the cost for that injury. With government cutbacks in all segments of our
society, there's too many other areas that go without due to our taking
advantage of that "freedom at all costs". MHO

Specious argument, IMO. When you protect people from themselves you pay an
additional cost of increased bureaucracy, plus "the system still pays"
(which is in itself a bit of propaganda used to justify/hide increased
health care profits); and when people don't suffer from the consequences of
their foolish actions, fools become the norm.

... just look around.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/06

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

So, does that put in the class of unethical greedy ******* or a god wanabe,
since he apparently knows what's best for everyone? You know it's time to
run when someone says to you "I'm from the government, I'm here to help
you".

"Leuf" wrote in message
...
get it, or
something equivalent to it, mandated are both logical next steps
towards acheiving the goal of getting the technology out there.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"The Other Funk" wrote in message
news:iKGMg.1192$OI1.599@trnddc05...
Go tell it to George Westinghouse and his air brake for railcars.

There it is again the "someone else did it so it must be OK" argument. Still
doesn't work.


Why do you think that presenting a product to the consumer product safety
commission is in any way unethical?

Trying to push legislation for financial gain is the sign of a lowlife. If
the people want it, they will buy it. Let them decide. There is far to much
of this "we know what's best for you better than you do" attitude.

Oh, one last thing, don't say lawyer like its a bad thing. Remember,
lawyers are on both sides of a dispute.


Yes, one hires professional scumbag (lawyer) to counter the other guys
professional scumbag (lawyer).

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:27:10 GMT, "CW" wrote:

So, does that put in the class of unethical greedy ******* or a god wanabe,
since he apparently knows what's best for everyone? You know it's time to
run when someone says to you "I'm from the government, I'm here to help
you".

I think that people are very price conscious and thus if you have
cheap saws without the safety feature and more expensive saws with it,
people are going to buy the cheaper one. Especially inexperienced
people buying their first saw. Aren't those the people you'd most
want to have the safety feature? And yet those saws currently have
the poorest excuse for guards that most people give up on and take
off. You don't want people losing fingers in order to learn the value
of the device, and that is where the market fails and the government
should step in. I'd rather have mandatory safety features than
require a license to buy/operate a saw - though you could make an
argument for that too.

It's not like there is going to be a law that says you can only buy
saws from Sawstop. The others will get around the patent. If the guy
was smart and was really in it just for the money then he'd find a
price they couldn't refuse to license from him. Right now he's
holding a gun to their heads saying either pay my ridiculous price or
figure something out yourself, I don't care, just do it. I can
respect that. A guy who is willing to **** people off to make
something happen probably just isn't all about money.

And while the guy is a patent lawyer, he's also a woodworker, and came
up with a pretty cool invention for his tools. We can all respect
that much.


-Leuf

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:56:13 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:


"Upscale" wrote in message

And, I'm definitely not a "freedom of choice at all costs" person. I have
a
distinct problem with people who use that "freedom of choice under any
circumstance" to take part in activities that have every chance of hurting
them, especially when it's the rest of the system that is going to pick up
the cost for that injury. With government cutbacks in all segments of our
society, there's too many other areas that go without due to our taking
advantage of that "freedom at all costs". MHO

Specious argument, IMO. When you protect people from themselves you pay an
additional cost of increased bureaucracy, plus "the system still pays"
(which is in itself a bit of propaganda used to justify/hide increased
health care profits); and when people don't suffer from the consequences of
their foolish actions, fools become the norm.

... just look around.

Very well stated, logical, refreshing.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:01:06 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

And while the guy is a patent lawyer, he's also a woodworker, and came
up with a pretty cool invention for his tools. We can all respect
that much.

Yes, I can - until it is jammed down my throat.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

So, in a round about way, you answered my question. He is a god wannabe. He
is sure he knows whats best for everyone else. What do you want to bet there
is a big dose of GREEDY ******* in there to?

"Leuf" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:27:10 GMT, "CW" wrote:

Right now he's
holding a gun to their heads saying either pay my ridiculous price or
figure something out yourself, I don't care, just do it.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Swingman" wrote in message

Specious argument, IMO. When you protect people from themselves you pay an
additional cost of increased bureaucracy, plus "the system still pays"
(which is in itself a bit of propaganda used to justify/hide increased
health care profits); and when people don't suffer from the consequences
of
their foolish actions, fools become the norm.

Well, there's always going to be fools around no matter whether actions are
taken or not. And as far as suffering the consequences goes, it's the system
that ultimately pays for someone chopping a finger off. If those statistics
can be lowered compared to what they are now, then I'm all for it, even to
the point of some added bureaucracy.

From laws enacted to enforce seat belts up to driving and drinking
prevention, they're all laws that have benefited society no matter how they
came into being. Of course one might argue that it's that individual only
that suffers from chopping something off on a tablesaw, but I see it as
everybody else paying by the system having to deal with the repercussions of
it. And again, anyway I look at it, the effect it might have on my life is
inconsequential so I just can't apply much concern for whether government
gets involved or not. Maybe that's a selfish outlook, but I'd consider it
the norm for our North American society. Call me a sheep, or conditioned or
brainwashed or whatever you want, but there it is.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

OK, you're a brainwashed, conditioned, sheep.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

Call me a sheep, or conditioned or
brainwashed or whatever you want, but there it is.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"CW" wrote in message
So, in a round about way, you answered my question. He is a god wannabe.
He
is sure he knows whats best for everyone else. What do you want to bet
there
is a big dose of GREEDY ******* in there to?

For all your discussion about this topic, it always comes back to the same
thing ~ your accusation that he's greedy. Of course, that leads me to ask,
what practical actions would you have done in his place? What alternatives
would you have employed to try to get your product to market sooner than
later. Stating the product *will* be used by the market sooner than later is
not an answer. We *all* want to be successful now. This is an instant
gratification society.

Altruism is a wonderful thing, but most often it's a concept that is not
practiced nearly as much as many would like to believe. And since you're so
big on freedom of choice, the foundation of part of our North American
society, that freedom of choice necessarily includes the desire to become
rich and well off as soon as humanely possible.

You *might* be a vegan, living in a mud hut and your only demand on society
is to use your friend's computer so you can engage in this discussion, but
it's extremely doubtful. So, I ask again, what actions might you have done
differently? Realistically differently?

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"CW" wrote in message
OK, you're a brainwashed, conditioned, sheep.

And, the fact that you're saying it tells me that you've never had an
invention that you've tried to bring to market.

If you ever do have such an invention, you'll realize then what you need to
put into it. You live that invention, you promote it at every opportunity.
Your friends although they support you also think you're a fanatic and
overzealous. Every time you look at your invention, you wonder how it can be
improved, what can you do to it that will make people want it. It consumes
you to the point that it's all you think about. In short, it's your life,
your baby that you want to bring to fruition. Sure, you'd like to get rich
from your invention, but that's not your only motivation. You want people to
enjoy your invention, benefit from it.

*THAT'S* what your invention represents. If you've gone through all that
then you might understand. Just having an idea for an invention doesn't
qualify. You have to actually make a prototype and then start going to see
person after person to try to get them to see it's value just as you do.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

BTDT.
So, this supposedly justifies using the government to force it on people?
YOU WILL BUY THIS AND LIKE IT, DAMN IT

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

You want people to
enjoy your invention, benefit from it.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

Finding the keyboard operational
CW entered:

"The Other Funk" wrote in message
news:iKGMg.1192$OI1.599@trnddc05...
Go tell it to George Westinghouse and his air brake for railcars.

There it is again the "someone else did it so it must be OK"
argument. Still doesn't work.


Why do you think that presenting a product to the consumer product
safety commission is in any way unethical?

Trying to push legislation for financial gain is the sign of a
lowlife. If the people want it, they will buy it. Let them decide.
There is far to much of this "we know what's best for you better than
you do" attitude.

Oh, one last thing, don't say lawyer like its a bad thing. Remember,
lawyers are on both sides of a dispute.


Yes, one hires professional scumbag (lawyer) to counter the other guys
professional scumbag (lawyer).

No it's not a someone else did it. It's an idea whose time has come.
No legislation is being pushed. Not by a long shot.
Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose and that is what we are
talking about. Why should I support your widow and kids because you sliced
your hand off when there is a safety device to prevent it? Next you'll want
to take your seatbelts out of the car and replace all your outlets with 2
prong ones.
Oh, if you are ever in court, remember you are represented by a "scumbag"
You can have the last word. I'm dropping this
Bob

--?
--?
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

My apologies. I thought you were trying to justify the practice.

"CW" wrote in message
link.net...
It's all right as long as someone else has also done it, is that what
you're
saying?

wrote in message
...

Eton/Cutler Hammer has done a similar thing with AFCIs

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

True. Apparently, he doesn't think it is.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:58:35 GMT, "CW" wrote:

My apologies. I thought you were trying to justify the practice.

Accepted and appreciated.
If this invention is the greatest thing since the invention of the
circular saw the world will beat a path to his door. We don't need the
government involved.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

BS argument. If someone farts in china, it affects you in a very minute way
but it affects you. Want to send troupes over there shove corks up their
butts? It'll cost you. No matter what happens, in some minute way you will
be effected. I would hole heartedly suggest, that you up and move to Pluto.
That will be far enough away that those Chinese farts won't effect you. Yes,
if I ever needed it, my goal would be to hire a bigger scumbag than the next
guys.


"The Other Funk" wrote in message
news:ZPZMg.3097$xh3.1755@trnddc01...
Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose and that is what we are
talking about. Oh, if you are ever in court, remember you are represented
by a "scumbag"

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:32:02 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

"CW" wrote in message
So, in a round about way, you answered my question. He is a god wannabe.
He
is sure he knows whats best for everyone else. What do you want to bet
there
is a big dose of GREEDY ******* in there to?

For all your discussion about this topic, it always comes back to the same
thing ~ your accusation that he's greedy. Of course, that leads me to ask,
what practical actions would you have done in his place? What alternatives
would you have employed to try to get your product to market sooner than
later. Stating the product *will* be used by the market sooner than later is
not an answer. We *all* want to be successful now. This is an instant
gratification society.


He was on his way to doing it the way everyone admires and respects.
Big companies turn him down, he goes ahead and starts his own company
to get the good device out there. I like that. I really do.

And I agree with others here that with such technology on his saws,
insurance companies would be the driver behind getting it onto more
saws. If the industrial companies are essentially pushed to use the
Saw Stop saw, how long before Delta, Powermatic, etc. must follow?

And it would trickle down. The serious hobbyists already buy some
models of saws found in pro shops. Big retailers like Sears and
others would end up offering it on lesser models from the POV of
liability. Again, insurance is the reason. Now that the new
technology is here, how can they defend themselves when someone sues
over losing a body part? Or being maimed?

Instant gratification is a seious problem when applied to wealth.
Yeah, a "good thing" comes of it, but he's unjustly enriched. What if
his device is in fact not the best? You don't *know* that he won't
get his device made the standard. He is a member of a profession many
hold in low regard. Lawyers are sometimes fully deserving of the
scorn some will heap on them. They know how to manipulate the rule of
law. Mr. Gass is obviously not afraid to do that.

Altruism is a wonderful thing, but most often it's a concept that is not
practiced nearly as much as many would like to believe. And since you're so
big on freedom of choice, the foundation of part of our North American
society, that freedom of choice necessarily includes the desire to become
rich and well off as soon as humanely possible.

When done fair and square, not through dictatorial fiat.


You *might* be a vegan, living in a mud hut and your only demand on society
is to use your friend's computer so you can engage in this discussion, but
it's extremely doubtful. So, I ask again, what actions might you have done
differently? Realistically differently?

I'd build a better mousetrap and let the world beat a path to my door.
He'd already started doing that with the founding of the Saw Stop saw
company.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:54:22 GMT, "The Other Funk"
wrote:

Oh, one last thing, don't say lawyer like its a bad thing. Remember,
lawyers are on both sides of a dispute.
Bob

I like what Danny DeVito said in "Other People's Money" - Lawyers are
like nuclear weapons. You have them, they have them, and once you use
them, they f*** everything up.


I might be paraphrasing his line, but that's pretty much it.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
For all your discussion about this topic, it always comes back to the same
thing ~ your accusation that he's greedy. Of course, that leads me to ask,
what practical actions would you have done in his place?

He did what I would have done. He also went one step further and is trying
to force sales by legislation. You seem to forget, this country was founded
by people that got tired of being told what to do by the government. Now
here you are, saying that the government should tell everybody what to do.

What alternatives
would you have employed to try to get your product to market sooner than
later. Stating the product *will* be used by the market sooner than later
is
not an answer. We *all* want to be successful now. This is an instant
gratification society.

The fact that everyone wants instant gratification doesn't make any means to
an end the right course to take. Bank robbers want instant gratification to.
You support their efforts? A lawyer (scumbag) once told me, and he firmly
believed it, that anything that you do, as long as there was not a specific
law against it, was alright. Do you believe that?



Altruism is a wonderful thing, but most often it's a concept that is not
practiced nearly as much as many would like to believe.

Very few believe it. The attitude that you are advocating is becoming
increasingly prevalent. That of screw any body to get what you want.



And since you're so
big on freedom of choice, the foundation of part of our North American
society, that freedom of choice necessarily includes the desire to become
rich and well off as soon as humanely possible.

This society is quickly turning from free enterprise to free greed. Free
enterprise is where you are willing to honestly work to get somewhere. Free
greed is where you are willing to screw anyone to get somewhere. You seem to
be an advocate of free greed. I pity those around you.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"CW" wrote in message
So, this supposedly justifies using the government to force it on people?
YOU WILL BUY THIS AND LIKE IT, DAMN IT

I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. And, if what I read about
Sawstop's inventor, those were not his first actions. I'm much more inclined
to believe the talk that the manufacturer's attempted to freeze him out
because it would eat into their profits. After that, anything goes in my
books.

You're so down on what you perceive as Mr. Gass as attempting to legislate
this device and forcing you to use this product. Exactly how much vitriol
have you put into the manufacturers attempting to prevent the use of this
type of device at the cost of your safety? In a word NONE. Pretty one sided
in your attack don't you think? You're so big on personal choice and not
being forced to do anything that you've blindsided yourself to the
manufacturers maximizing profits without due concern to your health. You
need to examine what's really important here.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"CW" wrote in message

This society is quickly turning from free enterprise to free greed. Free
enterprise is where you are willing to honestly work to get somewhere.
Free
greed is where you are willing to screw anyone to get somewhere. You seem
to
be an advocate of free greed. I pity those around you.

You don't know me and if it interests you, my ethics prevent me from the
type of greed you're accusing me of. But, it makes you a special kind of
asshole in my books.

If Gass was as guilty of all you're accusing him of, he'd have tried to
legislate his invention from the get go. In the end, it now comes down to
the fact that this product can save a number of people from a particularly
horrendous difficulty in their lives. But NO, here's CW, defender of the
free who wants this product to survive on it's own merits or not at all. I
mean, my god, let's defend the right of personal choice just a little bit
longer and have a few more tens of thousands of people lose parts of their
hand so we can maintain that right to personal choice.

Screw everybody that it might help now, personal choice is more important.
It's only a few fingers. Who cares? Do you have any concept at all what it's
like to deal with a disability? And even worse, a disability that was entire
preventable?

Does that just about sum up your opinion? You've accused me of personal
greed at all costs without knowing anything about me. Let me return the
sentiment. I accuse you of being so caught up in your illusion of free
choice that you're more of a blind sheep than I'll ever be.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

Upscale wrote:

I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. And, if what I read
about Sawstop's inventor, those were not his first actions. I'm much
more inclined to believe the talk that the manufacturer's attempted
to freeze him out because it would eat into their profits. After
that, anything goes in my books.

Where is it written that any manufacturer is obligated to incorporate any
specific technology into their product? Saw manufacturers are certainly
entitled to take a pass on Sawstop, regardless of reason. Wow, big
conspiracy.

You're so down on what you perceive as Mr. Gass as attempting to
legislate this device and forcing you to use this product. Exactly
how much vitriol have you put into the manufacturers attempting to
prevent the use of this type of device at the cost of your safety?

Prevent the use? WTH are you talking about? Can't Sawstop be purchased by an
individual customer?

In a word NONE. Pretty one sided in your attack don't you think?

Oh, peeshaw. Defending a rhetorical position doesn't require one to provide
equal time to the position that is opposed.

You're so big on personal choice and not being forced to do anything that
you've blindsided yourself to the manufacturers maximizing profits
without due concern to your health. You need to examine what's really
important here.

Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. If the whirlysharp industry should
be forced to adopt Sawstop, it wouldn't affect the manufacturer's profit
line one smegging iota; the entire cost is passed onto the consumer.
Actually it is YOU who are so unconcerned about individual consumer choice,
that YOU want to force us to pay for a product whether we want it or not.
Powermatic, Delta, Jet, General, et al won't lose a bit of sleep over being
forced to incorporate Sawstop.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

" I'm much more inclined
to believe the talk that the manufacturer's attempted to freeze him out
because it would eat into their profits. After that, anything goes in my
books.

One of those thing we'll never know for sure. I also read that he wanted a
huge royalty. I was not at the meetings so I surely don't know for sure.
If his motivation was purely to save accidents, he'd have given he
technology for free.

I have to admire him for starting his own saw business. The marketplace
will determine the value of his idea.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

The Other Funk wrote:

No it's not a someone else did it. It's an idea whose time has come.
No legislation is being pushed.**Not*by*a*long*shot.
Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose and that is what we are
talking about. Why should I support your widow and kids because you sliced
your hand off when there is a safety device to prevent it?

OK, where do you stop?

Is it OK if I go skiing?

Is it OK if I ride my motorcycle or ATV?

Is it OK if I go trapshooting?

Is it OK if I take a bath?
(lots of accidents in bathrooms)

IOW, you're supporting the proverbial slippery slope.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message

Where is it written that any manufacturer is obligated to incorporate any
specific technology into their product? Saw manufacturers are certainly
entitled to take a pass on Sawstop, regardless of reason. Wow, big
conspiracy.

In the beginning, Gass presented this product to a large number of
manufactures at the same time. All of them at the time with a their lawyers
involved, panned his invention. You've obviously done precious little
reading on this subject. I suggest you do so and then come back with your
observations.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

One of those thing we'll never know for sure. I also read that he wanted a
huge royalty. I was not at the meetings so I surely don't know for sure.
If his motivation was purely to save accidents, he'd have given he
technology for free.

I have to admire him for starting his own saw business. The marketplace
will determine the value of his idea.

I can't argue with that Ed, but, answer me one question. If you'd invented
this product and knowing how many injuries it could prevent, would you have
given it away completely for free? I don't call it greed for someone to
invent something that will benefit people, but also want to profit from it
at the same time. I call that just a natural human instinct to want to
benefit from what we create.

And I doubt I'm wrong in thinking that it would be tantamount to impossible
to give such a device away for free. Corporate business would find a way to
take it over or profit from it one way or another. Along the same lines, how
many similar inventions can you say were given away for free? From Drug
companies with their life saving concoctions to almost any industry you want
to mention in North America, it's all founded on a business model.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

Upscale wrote:

In the beginning, Gass presented this product to a large number of
manufactures at the same time. All of them at the time with a their
lawyers involved, panned his invention. You've obviously done
precious little reading on this subject. I suggest you do so and then
come back with your observations.

Ohhhh, the patronizing brush off. Right... it's my lack of knowledge, not
your faulty logic, that's the problem.

Again, when a manufacturer, whether individually or by the bushel barrel,
decides to pass on a product, that does not constitute a conspiracy to
eliminate a product from the marketplace. The proof is in its availability
to the individual consumer.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

Upscale wrote:

.... From Drug companies with their life
saving concoctions to almost any industry you want to mention in
North America, it's all founded on a business model.

Well, let's see, the pharmeceutical companies gave away about $2.5 billion
in free medications to about 8 million folks last year.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Upscale" wrote in message

I can't argue with that Ed, but, answer me one question. If you'd invented
this product and knowing how many injuries it could prevent, would you
have
given it away completely for free? I don't call it greed for someone to
invent something that will benefit people, but also want to profit from it
at the same time. I call that just a natural human instinct to want to
benefit from what we create.

Profit yes, but how much is too much. That is one of the unknowns here. If
you go back in history, you can find examples of all sorts of situations
from the scientist that labored out of the desire to help humanity to the
ones purely profit motivated.



And I doubt I'm wrong in thinking that it would be tantamount to
impossible
to give such a device away for free. Corporate business would find a way
to
take it over or profit from it one way or another. Along the same lines,
how
many similar inventions can you say were given away for free? From Drug
companies with their life saving concoctions to almost any industry you
want
to mention in North America, it's all founded on a business model.

About a year ago, one of the auto manufacturers (maybe Mercedes?) was
getting advertising mileage by stating they gave away the technology for
safety devices. Details don't seem to be stored in the brain cells right
now.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
Well, let's see, the pharmeceutical companies gave away about $2.5 billion
in free medications to about 8 million folks last year.

You're suggesting that the drug companies are a philanthropic business? 8
million folks. Wow, that adds up to how much, less than 0.03 of the US
population? Har, don't make me laugh. Suggest you look into how many
billions those same drug companies take in. The few billion dollars of
product they might freely distribute are given solely for appearance
purposes.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

Profit yes, but how much is too much. That is one of the unknowns here.
If
you go back in history, you can find examples of all sorts of situations
from the scientist that labored out of the desire to help humanity to the
ones purely profit motivated.

I guess it will all come out eventually. We'll just have to wait and see.

About a year ago, one of the auto manufacturers (maybe Mercedes?) was
getting advertising mileage by stating they gave away the technology for
safety devices. Details don't seem to be stored in the brain cells right
now.

I'll grant you it might have happened, but there's one important difference.
They were/are already in business in a big way. What's the likelihood of it
happening if they were a fledgling organization trying to survive?

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"CW" wrote in message
So, this supposedly justifies using the government to force it on
people?
YOU WILL BUY THIS AND LIKE IT, DAMN IT

I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth.

Yes you did, you just worded it differently.

And, if what I read about
Sawstop's inventor, those were not his first actions. I'm much more
inclined
to believe the talk that the manufacturer's attempted to freeze him out
because it would eat into their profits. After that, anything goes in my
books.

"They won't buy my device so I'll just force everyone to, so there". Waaaa
Waaaaa Waaaa
He has a dispute with other manufacturers and seeing that he can't win
there, takes it out on the public. You and King George would get along just
fine.

Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
 

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
In the beginning, Gass presented this product to a large number of
manufactures at the same time. All of them at the time with a their
lawyers
involved, panned his invention. You've obviously done precious little
reading on this subject. I suggest you do so and then come back with your
observations.



So what? He presented his device to potential customers and they didn't buy
it. Do you buy everything someone tries to sell you? If you do, let's talk.
Have I got a deal for you.