Well Bob, you have a point and I respect your point. You are the first that
has been able to convence me that perhaps I am looking a little too strongly
in my on favor.
In this case, I hope that when and if I am in the market for this product,
it is available and at that point, I will hope it is around by what ever
means.

I again am not trying to force my openions on any one. I am mearely stating
my openion just like every one else. I have taken no steps to encourage the
governmant to become involved.

As far a being a hypocrit... Perhaps if I signed a petition for the backing
of the government to become involved, and then tried to buy a TS with out
the feature through another country. But, untill I actually take action
other than to simply voice my desires and or openion I have every right to
say what I want. Right or wrong.

"JackD" wrote in message ...
Did you read the "performance specification" that was submitted? It states
a
number of requirements which are clearly tailored to a specific
implementation - the very same implementation that is patented by those
submitting the petition.

Well of course it is, since their product is the only one on the market that
detects human flesh and stops a spinning blade. I did read the petition,
and in my opinion, it stops whort of mandating use of one system. For
example, it states that the system must be, "capable of detecting contact or
dangerous proximity between a person and the saw blade..." It doesn't state
how such detection must be accomplished. In theory, someone could come up
with an infrared ro laser based system that detects close proximity to the
blade, and meet this requirement.

The petition also states that the system must have, "a reaction system to
perform some action upon detection of such contact or dangerous proximity,
such as stopping or retracting the blade..." Again, the petition does not
state exactly how this requirement is to be met. Perhaps a system could be
developed that uses a brake system similar to the disc brakes in your car,
rather than one that works directly on the teeth of the saw blade. If so,
this requirement would be met, and not infringe upon SawStop's patents in
any way.

If the petition were more broadly worded, then I'd
agree with you. But it isn't and therefore people are crying foul.

I think it's worded broadly enough to allow for competition to crop up.
Don't you think that, since SawStop approached them a few years ago, Delta,
Jet/Powermatic, Dewalt and others have been exploring ways of accomplishing
the same thing?

Must be more than "a bit past redline" based on my experience. :-) But
Leon
contended that cars have limiters which prevent "going past the redline"
and
that _just_ain't_so_. Not in any car I've ever driven.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Doug,

Actually most diesels that I am familiar with are equipped with such devices
and have been for decades. Mercedes diesels have had this since before the
invention of the transistor. The rev limiter is meant to protect the engine
rather than to prevent you from going too fast. It is a reliability
mechanism, not a safety device.

-Jack

Leon wrote:

And yet you probably drive a car with government mandated air bags and seat
belts and you even probably have a law requiring you to wear the seat
belts.............hummm This really is no different.




Yeah, but there is a difference in that there are competing
manufacturers in the airbag and seatbelt markets. No one
company has a MONOPOLY.

And it's the monopoly by regulation that most ****es me off.

CJ

Give up my freedom... No. That is a very broad term. I am only talking
about adding 1 more to the thousands of already government mandated
requirements.
This certainly is not the first of or the last of these type proposals. I
just happen to go along with it. You on the other hand choose not to go
along with it. That is OK with me.
Yes. I would voluntarily give up my freedom to choose a TS with or with
out this feature.
That's it in a nut shell. If I have to sacrifice having a choice for what I
would consider a better out come, I have no problem with that. I guess this
is the beauty of living in the US. You have the freedom to voice your
preferences most of the time.

Now, changing the subject a bit and to give you an example of some thing you
may or may not be aware of. My professional career was in the Automotive
industry. I was in upper management and successfully retired at age 40. If
you recall back in the 80's the Freon used in automotive air conditioning
systems was called R-12. There was a big deal about this freon damaging the
environment so a new type refrigerent was Mandated by the government so that
the R-12 would be phased out. That is what the manufacturers wanted you to
know.
Actually the patent for R-12 ran out for the manufacturer and every one was
able to make it and sell it. The manufacturer lobbied and convinced that
govermant that the R-12 was damaging the environment and should be phased
out and replaced with a more friendly refrigerant which they already had a
new patent on. Then the new refrigerant was introduced under a new patent
and that company is all warm and fuzzy again. One problem with this is that
while the new refrigerant is more friendly to the environmant, it is more
dangerous to be around if you are a human being. If you will notice, with
the new refrigerent, mechanics are required if possible to recapture the
freon gas if he has to open up the AC system. This is mostly for his long
term health. If the new Freon gas is so much friendlier, why not let it
excape into the atmosphere like the old freon gas was allowed to do.

Now this is a great example of a manufacturer making up a reason to require
the government to become involved. No one really benefits from this mandate
expept the manufacturer.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Leon"
wrote:
Its really a catch 22 situation. Your are dammed if you let the
government
protect you and you are dammed if you refuse to let the government
protect
you. In this case, I'll go with the government.

Why wait for the government? Buy one now.

Or are you hoping that, if you defend them long enough and loud enough,
they'll give you one?

That would be great....But they know nothing of my thoughts so my opinion is
not much of a defense for them. ;~)

Great decision Tim, that is what works best for you and you seem to have
actually thought this out.

I just quickly counted how many posts to this thread you have already
made--over 44! You are making this a full time crusade, I take it?? g Go
have a beer and stay away from sharp tools for a while. Everyone has their
opinion on this SawStop thing.

dave

Leon wrote:

snip

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Leon"
wrote:
Umm.. the module has already been in use for many years now... Probably
not
as you think of it but it is in deed in use. The perimeters are set
higher
than most speed limits but that could be easily changed by different
programming. GM started using an ECM in the Early 80's... 1980 IIRC.
ECM
was short for Electronic Control Module. Among all the sensors it
monitored, it monitored engine RPM and vehicle speed. There was and
still
is an RPM limiter to prevent owners from going past redline and the speed
monitors helped to determine when the transmissions would shift depending
on
engine RPM.

.


With all respect Doug, You don't know WTF you're talking about. If you
reread what I wrote. I did not say all cars. I invite you to go to a GM
dealership or the store and pick up any automotive magazine that tests the
performance cars, I was addressing the fact that the module does and has
existed for many years already. In particular look for the magazine that
shows top speed. In almost every case some of the cars top speed is
governed and limited. This is done by limiting engine RPMS dependant on
what gear the car or truck is in.

"Tim Douglass"
Some years ago there was an experimental device on some cars to
prevent you from driving while intoxicated. You had to punch in a
series of randomly generated numbers accurately in a certain amount of
time for the car to start. I don't recall the details, but it seems
the company got sued into oblivion when some woman tried to get away
from a rapist and couldn't because she was too scared to punch the
right numbers. I would love for there to be a foolproof way to prevent
people from driving when they have been drinking, but I doubt any such
thing is possible and would probably still hesitate to have it
required.

Tim Douglass

At least a couple of years ago, a similar type was around. My nephew had to
blow in to a tube in order to start his car. The JUDGE require that.

"Chris Johnson"


I've got a better idea: Every saw manufacturer should offer this
and other safety products as reasonably priced options for each
model of saw. You get to choose what safety options you want
installed on it, or choose none if that's what you want.

Sounds good to me.


But wait, there's a problem with that. The problem is that there
IS no product that competes with the SawStop device and probably
won't be until the patent runs out as the patent is pretty
comprehensive and it's not easy to make an end run around one that
covers the whole concept so thoroughly.

I wonder why the electric break on so many miter saws could not be beefed up
to perform as well as the saw stop.
A simple pin ingauges a hole in the blade or arbor and stops the blade. No,
I have not read the whole petition but From what every one is saying, I
would be inclined to think that the petition requires "LIKE" or better
performance and not the same way to achieve "LIKE " performance. A little
imagination should acomplish the same thing.


It's freedom of choice, Leon. I won't be denied mine. If you want
to lose that freedom to choose, that's your business.

Well Chris if you loose the choice to buy a new saw with the modifications
or not, you will still have the choice to voice you openion.

"Leon" wrote in message
y.com...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Leon"
wrote:
Umm.. the module has already been in use for many years now...
Probably
not
as you think of it but it is in deed in use. The perimeters are set
higher
than most speed limits but that could be easily changed by different
programming. GM started using an ECM in the Early 80's... 1980 IIRC.
ECM
was short for Electronic Control Module. Among all the sensors it
monitored, it monitored engine RPM and vehicle speed. There was and
still
is an RPM limiter to prevent owners from going past redline and the
speed
monitors helped to determine when the transmissions would shift
depending
on
engine RPM.

.


With all respect Doug, You don't know WTF you're talking about. If you
reread what I wrote. I did not say all cars. I invite you to go to a GM
dealership or the store and pick up any automotive magazine that tests the
performance cars, I was addressing the fact that the module does and has
existed for many years already. In particular look for the magazine that
shows top speed. In almost every case some of the cars top speed is
governed and limited. This is done by limiting engine RPMS dependant on
what gear the car or truck is in.


that top speed is limited to: what the driver can do with installed tires on
some specific track, aerodynamic forces relating to the frontal area and
drag of the body, size of the engine installed, size of cojones of the
driver, or other factors. it almost isn't ever a speed limiter on the
engine.

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..


Remember when people - Adult, Experienced, Taxpaying Citizens of a
Free
Society were allowed, heck, even EXPECTED to occasionally make some of
their own decisions?

Jim Helfer
Pittsburgh PA

Actually No.. I don't recall, it seems to be as it always has been. You
are
still free to buy a saw or not buy the saw with a better safety device.
It
still is your decision. This is no different than having to have
liability
insurance, seat belts, air bags, a drivers license, a social security
number, the list goes on... My decision would be to buy my next saw with
the safety feature, with or with out legislation. I am not so arrogant to
think that I would never benefit from it, so whether the government
mandates
it or not I have the experience to realize that this is a good thing like
it
or not. I am all for the government staying out of my life as much as
possible but if a safety devise is mandated regardless of which style or
who
makes it I am all for it as it will cause the price of the now available
product to go down as competition steps in.



Well Leon, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. If you think that
free peoples in a free society making their own decisions in a free market
is somehow "arrogant" (at least that's what I can gather from the parts of
your post that aren't self-contradictory), that's fine. You don't really
_have_ to make any decisions, just please don't be so cavalier about giving
away other people's ability to do so.



Jim H
Pittsburgh PA

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Nothing too surprising in their reply, and it probably is a form
letter that
they send to anyone complaining about their business tactics. Leon,
you
really should ask them if you can be a spokesman for their company,
you and
this Fanning guy are definitely on the same wavelength.


So you think I make a convincing case do you? LOL May be I should...I
wonder what the pay is? ;~)

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:47:56 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Chris,,

I have no affiliation with SawStop nor do I have any plans to except to
perhaps buy their product or a like product in the future.

Thank you.


It seems strange that so many are oposeed to this device because of the way
it has come to morket. I can respect that. If they only knew how much of
their lives revolves something governmant mandated and are thankful that it
was. Take quality of water supplied to you by your city water department or
Electrical codes to prevent elecctrical fires for instance.

Leon, you don't seem to see a very important distinction between these
things and Sawstop. All of these government mandates, along with
required auto liability insurance, act to prevent other people from
hurting me. Water quality mandates prevent my city from mishandling
water and making me sick, electrical codes prevent the electrician
from doing substandard work in my home and burning down my house, and
liability insurance prevents everybody from legally driving without
making sure that they have some way to compensate me if they hurt me
while driving improperly. Sawstop is not at all similar...it is a
device meant to save me only from me. The best analogies are seat
belt, air bag, and helmet laws. Yes, those are imposed on us all of
the time. It does not mean that everybody agrees with that
imposition. It only means that legislatures did what many people see
as wrong. Frankly, I don't much care for those laws; I would use a
seat belt whether it was mandated or not, and I don't ride a
motorcycle, but I certainly wouldn't want to without a helmet...even
though my state does not require it. Similarly, when I can buy a
tablesaw, I probably will want Sawstop. But I want it to succeed on
its own, I don't want it to be forced on us. This is not an area
where the government needs to step in.



But what really
confounds me, is that while they seem to think their freedom will be lost if
the SawStop company get its way and those same people seem to think that I
don't have the freedom to voice my openion on the matter.



Eric Ryan
E-mail me at eryan /at/ qconline /dot/ com

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:47:56 +0000, Leon wrote:


It seems strange that so many are oposeed to this device because of the way
it has come to morket. I can respect that. If they only knew how much of
their lives revolves something governmant mandated and are thankful that it
was. Take quality of water supplied to you by your city water department or
Electrical codes to prevent elecctrical fires for instance. But what really
confounds me, is that while they seem to think their freedom will be lost if
the SawStop company get its way and those same people seem to think that I
don't have the freedom to voice my openion on the matter.

I haven't heard anyone saying you don't have the right to express an
opinion. You're confusing that with them expressing their differing
opinions, or expressing their opinion that you're misguided.

-Doug

"Sam Chambers" wrote in message
...
"JackD" wrote in message news
I think it's worded broadly enough to allow for competition to crop up.
Don't you think that, since SawStop approached them a few years ago,
Delta,
Jet/Powermatic, Dewalt and others have been exploring ways of
accomplishing
the same thing?



I think that the problem with the petition is that it was not worded in a
way that everyone understands with out perhaps an attorney to help out. I
believe a lot may be being read into the petition.

I agree that if the performance modification is mandated, which will
guarantee a market also, other people much smarter than me will jump at the
opportunity to offer a better mouse trap. I have thought of the laser
detection and that seems pretty reasonable as laser are pretty inexpensive
now days, or a device similar to what garage door openers use to reverse
the door if you break the beam. The trick here would be to determine if a
hand or wood was in the path of the blade. As for brakes, a disk and
caliper on the opposite side of the arbor sounds like a great idea or a
simple pin to engage into a blade hole or arbor hole.

"Doug Miller"

You obviously are not concerned *enough* about your own safety to go out
and
buy one. But you think that the rest of us should be forced to do
something
that _you're_not_willing_to_do_yourself_.

That is yor assumption.. You read a lot into what you read that does not
exist.

I will buy one with my next saw purchase.


It's a free country, all right, but you don't really believe that. If you
did,
you wouldn't be eager to have the government *force* people to buy
products
that they do not want.

Sure I do and Capitolism is alive and well. And SawStop is apparently doing
every thing with in their rights and the law. If you are so opposed to the
setup and method of delivery stop the name calling and do something about
it. Fight the petition and quit whining.



Yes, it is different: automobile safety devices protect me primarily from
the
careless acts of _others_.


That too and them from you.

g that's 50 posts!

dave

Leon wrote:

"Doug Miller"

You obviously are not concerned *enough* about your own safety to go out
and
buy one. But you think that the rest of us should be forced to do
something
that _you're_not_willing_to_do_yourself_.

That is yor assumption.. You read a lot into what you read that does not
exist.

I will buy one with my next saw purchase.


It's a free country, all right, but you don't really believe that. If you
did,
you wouldn't be eager to have the government *force* people to buy
products
that they do not want.

Sure I do and Capitolism is alive and well. And SawStop is apparently doing
every thing with in their rights and the law. If you are so opposed to the
setup and method of delivery stop the name calling and do something about
it. Fight the petition and quit whining.


Yes, it is different: automobile safety devices protect me primarily from
the
careless acts of _others_.

That too and them from you.

"JackD" wrote in message ...

I'd say this discussion is not about safety. It is about the business
tactics of SawStop. One of their tactics is to show gory pictures of
fingers
which have been chopped off. One of their tactics is to say "if you are
against this you are against safety". One of their tactics is to petition
the government to get their proprietary product mandated so that they can
sell it. I find this approach manipulative, offensive, anti-competitive
and
generally sleazy.

It has come to not being about safety... Seems to have come to a few
thinking they are loosing their entire rights as they always use the rights
in a plural term.


Leon, you seem to keep insisting that this regulation is necessary in
order
to bring the product to market? Why is this the case?
Can't they sell it without someone MAKING you buy it?

No, I don't insist. I simply hope this product or one like it is still on
the market when I decide to buy again. My openion is that if the government
makes it manditory, I will not have to worry about this feature
disappearing.


Leon, safety sells. How many million$ were spent producing advertisements
that you have seen showing side airbags and other automotive safety
features? How many soccer moms bought volvos based on their reputation for
safety? I know many many people who have taken crashworthiness as one of
the
prime criteria in selecting a new car. People will pay a premium for an
automobile which is safer. That SawStop can not capitalize on people's
demand for safe products and must have their product mandated by the
government is an indication that their product is unwanted at the current
price.

You make a good point. But, Oldsmobile had the air bag in the early 70's on
the Toronado. Ford and Chrysler did also IIRC n certain vehicles. But, we
did not see the air bags become main stream until they were government
mandated. Also, the air bags came one at a time so to speek. Frst the one
in the steering wheel..then some years later, the passenger side air bag,
then the side air bags, then the back seat air bags.
For what ever reason, Air bags did not become a common feature for a good 15
years after they were introduced.
All these corporations are huge and had the money to do the research and
development and were already in the car building business. Saw Stop is a
start up company with much less capitol and an equally effective safety
device. I would hate to see it disappear because of lack of capitol or the
inability to hold out for 15 years like the automotive industry did.

Perhaps they could try to make it better and cheaper so that people
will actually demand it instead of trying to ensure a monopoly through
regulation? Build a better mousetrap and all that...

I believe that they have taken that route. The have attended numerous trade
shows, contacted most all the saw manufacturing companies and while the
trade shows appear to have been successful with the puplic, the saw
manufacturers apparently felt that our safety was not warrented and would
not take the first step. I would be willing to bet that if the
manufacturers had taken a survey of their dealers, and customers, we would
see the option today. So IMHO part of the blame can be cast towards the saw
manufacturers. While I would prefer to see the devices offered as options,
the saw manufacturers have decided not to voluntarily offer the option. Why
are we not jumping down their throats to offer a similar device of their own
design? I believe that if the product dis become readily available the saws
with out the feature would eventually be gone from production.

"Chris Johnson" wrote in message
...


Leon wrote:

And yet you probably drive a car with government mandated air bags and
seat
belts and you even probably have a law requiring you to wear the seat
belts.............hummm This really is no different.




Yeah, but there is a difference in that there are competing
manufacturers in the airbag and seatbelt markets. No one
company has a MONOPOLY.

Actually air bags have available since the early 70's and were offered on
select vehicles by the big 3. IIRC one of the big 3 had royalty rights to
the bag. That might explain why it took 20 to 25 years or so before it
became common to see air bags on a wider variety of cars.

The government is the last say as to whether a company is a monopoly. And,
since SawStop has offered the petition with all particulars to the
government, the government will determine if the company would operate as a
monopoly and may or may not grant the petition dependent on its decision. I
feel confident that if the government grants the petition and mandates the
modification, that it felt that particulars would not be preventing
competition to develop alternatives to perform in an equal manner. You can
bet that the saw manufacturers attorneys will be all over this and point out
obvious problems with the petition if there are in any actuality problems
with competition being able to compete. IMHO SawStop is above board in that
it has legally petitioned the government and that the attorneys of possible
or future competitors should be examining this quite closely.

Yes, Jack, I think that's EXACTLY what comes next, after SawStop
becomes mandatory. EverythingStop is on the Long Term To Do list, no
doubt.




"JackD" wrote in message ...
Wow. Can't sell his product so he wants to legislate it in?
What is next? Routerstop? Joinerstop? Drillstop? Axe stop? And even
doorstop.
The 8% royalty makes me think this is motivated by greed rather than safety.
It also makes me think it will not make it into saws. Very sad as it is a
promising idea.

-Jack "of many trades"


"Leon" wrote in message
y.com...
Cool.

"Gary Milliorn" wrote in message
. ..
Well, they said they were going to force it down the consumer's throats.
Here's
the filing with the Federal Register, as of today, Jul 9:



http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...3/03-17327.htm

The CPSC filing is "CP03-2", and here are their filings:

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/Tablesaw.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...ladesawpt1.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...ladesawpt2.pdf

As far as I can interpret the Federal Register filing, there is a 60-day
window of opportunity
for commenting on the proposed mandatory inclusion of SawStops
proprietary
technology in all US-sold tablesaws.

Regards,
Gary

The government has been slowly taking away our common sense. Gads, you
can't even celebrate July 4 without heavy, heavy safety regulations. I
guess the government can do a better job thinking for us than we can. My
god, how did I live so long?

"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
gy.com...

As far as the current guards on table saws, I agree they are more of a
nuisance than they're worth. I have a splitter and that is all the safety
feature I think I need. That and common sense.

In article m, "Leon" wrote:
Give up my freedom... No. That is a very broad term. I am only talking
about adding 1 more to the thousands of already government mandated
requirements.

So because the government has already overstepped its Constitutional authority
a thousand times, it's OK for it to do so again? I think not.

This certainly is not the first of or the last of these type proposals. I
just happen to go along with it. You on the other hand choose not to go
along with it. That is OK with me.

Trouble is, you're advocating that government *remove* that freedom of choice
from me.

Yes. I would voluntarily give up my freedom to choose a TS with or with
out this feature.

Then go buy one. But don't demand that the rest of us give up our freedom to
make the same choice.

That's it in a nut shell. If I have to sacrifice having a choice for what I
would consider a better out come, I have no problem with that. I guess this
is the beauty of living in the US. You have the freedom to voice your
preferences most of the time.


You don't have to sacrifice having a choice. Go buy one. Now. Then shut up,
and let the rest of us decide _for_ourselves_ whether we want one too.

Now, changing the subject a bit and to give you an example of some thing you
may or may not be aware of. My professional career was in the Automotive
industry. I was in upper management and successfully retired at age 40. If
you recall back in the 80's the Freon used in automotive air conditioning
systems was called R-12. There was a big deal about this freon damaging the
environment so a new type refrigerent was Mandated by the government so that
the R-12 would be phased out. That is what the manufacturers wanted you to
know.
Actually the patent for R-12 ran out for the manufacturer and every one was
able to make it and sell it. The manufacturer lobbied and convinced that
govermant that the R-12 was damaging the environment and should be phased
out and replaced with a more friendly refrigerant which they already had a
new patent on. Then the new refrigerant was introduced under a new patent
and that company is all warm and fuzzy again. One problem with this is that
while the new refrigerant is more friendly to the environmant, it is more
dangerous to be around if you are a human being. If you will notice, with
the new refrigerent, mechanics are required if possible to recapture the
freon gas if he has to open up the AC system. This is mostly for his long
term health. If the new Freon gas is so much friendlier, why not let it
excape into the atmosphere like the old freon gas was allowed to do.

Now this is a great example of a manufacturer making up a reason to require
the government to become involved. No one really benefits from this mandate
expept the manufacturer.

Yeah, it would be a great example if it were true, but it's not. This account
is absolute nonsense. The initiative to ban chlorofluorocarbons started with
ecologists and organic chemists, not with refrigerant manufacturers. And
that's what it was at the beginnig, too -- an attempt to ban *all* CFCs, not
just one or two specific refrigerants, because they *do* destroy the ozone
layer. Recapture of the new refrigerants is required by law for protection of
the atmosphere, not mechanics. Why not let it escape? Because it's destructive
of the ozone layer *too*, just not *as* destructive as the old stuff -- and
now that we know what's breaking down the ozone layer, we'd better stop
pumping more of that crap into the air.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

That is the Tooth Fairy School of Regulation, IMHO. These folks will
do all they can to make SURE there is no real competition. Though 95%
of a captive market would no doubt be enough to make them beat the
bushes for a fake competitor to hold up during Congressional hearings.

It's cheaper to buy legislators than to create a saw factory, isn't
it?




"Sam Chambers" wrote in message ...
I hear what you're saying, but that's not really what the petition says.
True, they've modeled the petition based on what their system can do (makes
sense, since there's is the only such product), but it doesn't mandate use
of the SawStop system. In other words, other manufacturers or entrepreneurs
can develop another, competing system. As with any technological
development, there's always someone who invents the thing first. If it's a
good product, others will follow. If not, it'll die on the vine.

Can you imagine the potential market if someone invented a similar system
that could be retrofitted to existing saws?

Another thought - I took a table saw class awhile back. The instructor said
he asked the major U.S. table saw manufacturers why they didn't develop
better safety equipment. One guy finally told him it was because their
legal department advised against it. The lawyers believe that by developing
and marketing a "new and improved" safety system, they'd basically be
admitting that the safety equipment on all the saws they've sold to date are
inadequate, and that'll lead to more lawsuits. Take it for what it's worth,
but in our overly litigious society, it makes some sense.

In article m, "Leon" wrote:

"Chris Johnson"


I've got a better idea: Every saw manufacturer should offer this
and other safety products as reasonably priced options for each
model of saw. You get to choose what safety options you want
installed on it, or choose none if that's what you want.

Sounds good to me.

You're contradicting yourself, you know. All along, you have maintained quite
strenuously that the available safety features should be mandated by the
government, and not left to the purchaser's discretion.



But wait, there's a problem with that. The problem is that there
IS no product that competes with the SawStop device and probably
won't be until the patent runs out as the patent is pretty
comprehensive and it's not easy to make an end run around one that
covers the whole concept so thoroughly.

I wonder why the electric break on so many miter saws could not be beefed up
to perform as well as the saw stop.
A simple pin ingauges a hole in the blade or arbor and stops the blade. No,

Think for a moment or two. It's gonna take a pretty stout pin to stop a blade
driven by a 3HP motor, and spinning at 4000 rpm.

I have not read the whole petition but From what every one is saying, I
would be inclined to think that the petition requires "LIKE" or better
performance and not the same way to achieve "LIKE " performance. A little
imagination should acomplish the same thing.


It's freedom of choice, Leon. I won't be denied mine. If you want
to lose that freedom to choose, that's your business.

Well Chris if you loose the choice to buy a new saw with the modifications
or not, you will still have the choice to voice you openion.


Nobody needs to lose that choice. The product is available *now*, and everyone
has the choice. If you want it, buy it.

The problem I see is that I don't want it, not at the current price, but *you*
think that I should be *forced* to buy it next time I buy a table saw. Tell
you what: since you think it's so important for me to have one, you can buy it
for me. How's that sound?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

I think LEON thinks if he stays REALLY close to the operators of
SawStop by carrying their water here, they might give him one for
free.

Except his very loudness in here makes it MORE difficult for that to
happen - cuz it'd look too much like what it is: a reward for carrying
their dirty water.

Leon needs to figure out where he can earn enough money to have his
lips surgically removed from SawStop's ASS.



"Leon" wrote in message gy.com...
"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
igy.com...
I think we should all send email to the SawStop company telling them that
they can take their invention and shove up their a$$es.

It's a good invention, for those that WANT it. To try and force it on
consumers via regulation is just removing more of our rights. We should
have the right to choose whether or not we want this and not be forced to
use it.

You do have the right to buy it or not. My mother probably will not buy one
nor will my sister. If you object so strongly go ahead and include the
current guards that are manditory on table saws. They are a far worse idea
than the SawStop.

In article m, "Leon" wrote:
Chris,,

I have no affiliation with SawStop nor do I have any plans to except to
perhaps buy their product or a like product in the future.

Thank you.


It seems strange that so many are oposeed to this device because of the way
it has come to morket. I can respect that. If they only knew how much of
their lives revolves something governmant mandated and are thankful that it
was. Take quality of water supplied to you by your city water department or
Electrical codes to prevent elecctrical fires for instance. But what really

Bad examples.

Water quality is clearly a public health issue (e.g.
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/pubs/snow/snow.html). AFAIK, table saw injuries are
not contagious, and thus do not pose the sort of threat to public health that
justifies government intervention.

The National Electrical Code was developed by the National Fire Protection
Association (www.nfpa.org), a nonprofit group founded by insurance industry
representatives. It has *no* connection to any governmental agencies except in
an advisory capacity.

confounds me, is that while they seem to think their freedom will be lost if
the SawStop company get its way and those same people seem to think that I
don't have the freedom to voice my openion on the matter.

Obviously the freedom to choose a table saw that is not equipped with $aw$top
*will* be lost if the company gets its way. DUH.

And nobody here has said that you don't (or shouldn't) have the freedom to
voice your opinion on the matter. We're telling you you're wrong, and we think
you should shut up. I would never dream of asking the government to *force*
you to.





--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

edfan wrote:
(Dave Mundt) wrote in message .. .


I don't object to the Saw Stop system as an
alternative, made available as an option in a free
market. I strenuously object to any one company being
handed the keys to the candy store by legislating a
requirement for their product. That is, to put it
plainly, UnAmerican.
Regards
Dave Mundt


EXTREMELY WELL SAID. Bears rereading.

I've been burning their ears off at SawStop. The first email I sent to
them attacking their tactics was greeted with their standard form
letter, to which I responded:

---------------------------------------------------------------

I"m really not interested in your form letter.

Here are the facts:
Your company is attempting to get a private market legislated and rammed
down the throats of the consumer whether we want to buy your product or not.

The patents held by your company are comprehensive and leave little room
for another company to field a competing product without infringing upon
your patent rights. As such, competition is restricted.

For the CPSC to attempt to institute a regulation requiring your product
to be installed on saws is to create an illegal monopoly, thereby
instantaneously putting your company's operations within the realm
covered by federal antitrust laws. If this should happen, I hope that
you ARE charged with violating those federal antitrust laws.

I also resist, in the absolute strongest of terms, any attempt to FORCE
me to purchase a safety device as part of a product that I might buy.
I have no problem with being able to purchase such a device as an
option, but to be forced to buy it, especially when there is only
ONE supplier of such an item?

No way in hell.


I was much in favor of your devices as a smart option for installation
in saws that I might purchase. But this blatant attempt to ram your
product up my backside whether I want to buy it or not, and without
even a choice of competing products, has caused me to turn completely
against your company for its unscrupulous operations.

I'd expect this kind of thinking from politicians. BAD ones.

If I ever end up with a product that has one of your devices in it, I
will go to great lengths to remove that device and throw it in the trash
where it belongs. It's not because of a problem with the device, it's
because of your company's blatant attempt to acquire an exclusive and
mandatory market by means of legislative action.

I wouldn't feel this way if the device were an option that was made
readily available for purchase, IF DESIRED, by the consumer. But if
you try to ram it down my throat, don't be surprised when I gag on it.


Very sincerely,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their reply:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a couple of points. First, we are offering to license our
technology to all manufacturers. Thus, if the CPSC adopts our proposed
regulation, there will be competition. Second, it is the patent system
that will restrict competition and that may grant us a "monopoly," not a
regulation from the CPSC. It sounds like your fundamental disagreement
is with the patent system. Third, our proposed regulation would only
"force" you to purchase our technology to the extent that similar
regulations "force" you to buy a blade guard when you buy a saw, "force"
you to buy a car with seat belts, or "force" you to buy a certain kind
of bike helmet for your kids. Your statements sound like you disapprove
of a government entity like the CPSC, which has the authority to mandate
safety standards for consumer products. Finally, ask yourself whether a
manufacturer's "freedom" to make and your "freedom" to buy unsafe saws
is really worth one high school kid losing a finger.

Sincerely,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which I responded,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I'll take apart your arguments one line at a time, if necessary.



SawStop wrote:

Just a couple of points. First, we are offering to license our
technology to all manufacturers.


So of course, you get a royalty for each system produced under license.
In any event, as your patents are fairly comprehensive, it would be
difficult to design a competitive safety system that operates on the
same concept of removing and/or stopping the blade on contact with
flesh.

You won't hear me argue that it's not a good design. In fact, it's an
incredible feat and for that by itself, I have nothing but praise for you.

But if you succeed in ramming a mandatory equipment regulation down our
throats, you have removed our freedom of choice as to what we buy and
whom we do business with. As there IS no competitive product to
SawStop and probably won't be due to your patents, I would be FORCED to
hand you some of my money whether I wanted to or not, if I had to buy
any new saws. (I will NOT, if the CPSC adopts such a regulation! I
will buy USED tools and refurbish them myself rather than be FORCED to
give you any of my money!)


Thus, if the CPSC adopts our proposed regulation, there will be
competition.

NO, there will NOT. Your patents are pretty comprehensive, as
mentioned before, and as for licensed products, you still make money on
products made under license.

Second, it is the patent system that will restrict competition and
that may grant us a "monopoly," not a regulation from the CPSC.

Splitting hairs and it makes no difference. A monopoly is a monopoly,
period. And I won't voluntarily do business with a monopoly if I don't
have to do so for my survival.

It sounds like your fundamental disagreement is with the patent
system.


No. I never thought that. Still don't. It's all well and good that
you MIGHT have a product that would be hard to follow without patent
infringement, but my issue is with being FORCED to buy ANYTHING without
a choice.

Third, our proposed regulation would only "force" you to purchase
our technology to the extent that similar regulations "force" you to
buy a blade guard when you buy a saw, "force" you to buy a car with
seat belts, or "force" you to buy a certain kind of bike helmet for
your kids.


This is a VERY poor analogy as there are SEVERAL manufacturers of
seatbelts, airbags, blade guards, bike helmets, etc. And though I
still don't like having no choice but to buy cars that have airbags and
seatbelts, purely on principle, I DO have a choice of manufacturers
of cars and if I care to do so, I can select cars that have different
brands of equipment in them. No single company is getting ALL the
business by a CPSC mandate. To me, that's the important part.


Your statements sound like you disapprove of a government entity like
the CPSC, which has the authority to mandate safety standards for
consumer products.


1: Yes, I do disapprove of a "nanny state" and the agencies that enact
rules that can restrict my freedom of choice.

2: It would be fairly easy to show that once you get past a certain
range of price and features in power tools, you're well within the
market of PROFESSIONAL woodworkers and not mere CONSUMERS. Just as
cars built for professional racing do not have to have certain
safety features that a passenger vehicle is required to have,
woodworking tools built for professionals are usually being operated by
people who know and live by their safety standards, for the most part.
They are people who would usually CHOOSE to buy a tool with your
safety device installed if it's available that way anyway.

It's completely unnecessary to try to FORCE me to buy your product by
mandate.


Finally, ask yourself whether a manufacturer's "freedom" to make and
your "freedom" to buy unsafe saws is really worth one high school kid
losing a finger.



So you're in favor of a nanny state? Should everything have a safety
device on it? Are you your brother's keeper?

Working with any highly energetic machine involves a certain amount of
risk. We can't control all risk factors and even your product isn't
foolproof. If you think it is, slap a running sawblade as fast as you
can and see how tiny the nick is. I'll watch but first let me get a
first aid kit ready.

I don't object to your product. I object to your attempt to ram it down
my throat without my consent or any choice in the matter.

And I strenuously object to the incredible money-grubbing attitude of
you and your company for trying to get rich by a forced monopoly. I
won't play.


Good day, and may the CPSC laugh in your face.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------



As you can tell, I have decidedly chosen sides on this issue!

CJ

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article m, "Leon"
wrote:

"Chris Johnson"


I've got a better idea: Every saw manufacturer should offer this
and other safety products as reasonably priced options for each
model of saw. You get to choose what safety options you want
installed on it, or choose none if that's what you want.

Sounds good to me.

You're contradicting yourself, you know. All along, you have maintained
quite
strenuously that the available safety features should be mandated by the
government, and not left to the purchaser's discretion.



But wait, there's a problem with that. The problem is that there
IS no product that competes with the SawStop device and probably
won't be until the patent runs out as the patent is pretty
comprehensive and it's not easy to make an end run around one that
covers the whole concept so thoroughly.

I wonder why the electric break on so many miter saws could not be beefed
up
to perform as well as the saw stop.
A simple pin ingauges a hole in the blade or arbor and stops the blade.
No,

Think for a moment or two. It's gonna take a pretty stout pin to stop a
blade
driven by a 3HP motor, and spinning at 4000 rpm.

and how are you going to find, then hit, that moving hole? also, won't you
have to wait for at least 50% blade to rotate past (on average)?

I have not read the whole petition but From what every one is saying, I
would be inclined to think that the petition requires "LIKE" or better
performance and not the same way to achieve "LIKE " performance. A
little
imagination should acomplish the same thing.


It's freedom of choice, Leon. I won't be denied mine. If you want
to lose that freedom to choose, that's your business.

Well Chris if you loose the choice to buy a new saw with the
modifications
or not, you will still have the choice to voice you openion.


Nobody needs to lose that choice. The product is available *now*, and
everyone
has the choice. If you want it, buy it.

The problem I see is that I don't want it, not at the current price, but
*you*
think that I should be *forced* to buy it next time I buy a table saw.
Tell
you what: since you think it's so important for me to have one, you can
buy it
for me. How's that sound?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

"JackD" wrote in message ...

Earlier you said you had not read the petition. Have you read it since
then?
It is fairly simple to understand. It does not appear to require a lawyer
to
understand.

I glanced over the petition but have not read it. My comment was based on
openions made about the petition. The openions seem to be rather broad
based and and non specific. The lack of specific indicators mentioned lead
me to my comment. While that was probably not a good thing to do and
contrubutes to the " he said she said" chatter concerning the petition.

Leon, you were in the automotive field right? How do you propose to stick
a
simple pin into a hole in a part that is moving at 4000RPM?

Well Jack I dont want to reveal all my secrets... LOL.. It was just a
suggested avenue to explore. The disk and caliper method would be an easier
solution and that could be followed with a back up pin locking in to insure
absolute imobility. Something like applying the parking brake after putting
the transmission in park on an automobile.


Anyway, the discussion of alternatives is meaningless as stopping and
dropping the blade upon contact is one of the patent claims. Doesn't
matter
that you have another way of doing it.

I wonder if the insert were to raise from the table with a shield around it
to encase the blade with out dropping the blade would be in violation?


You are certainly an interesting person, however you seem to contradict
yourself fairly often. First you are a automobile upper management type
wealthy enough to retire at 40, then you are a professional woodworker
making cabinet doors for 7 years or 8 years


Well Jack, like I dont know all the details of the petition, you dont know
all the details of my professional working career. But to put some clairity
on my career,

From the time I was a senior in HS and attended college 1972-1976 I worked
for Ameron Automitive Centers. I was eventually promoted to store manager
in 1976.
In 1977 a better position was offered with BF Goodrich as an assistant
manager.
Again in 1978 I was offered a better job opportunity as Parts Manager of a
new Oldsmobile franchise in Houston. I was 23. This was also the year that
I started taking woodworking more seriously.
This was a start from scratch company. The dealership was Ray Hewitt
Oldsmobile. One year later the franchise was sold and became Rice Menger
Oldsmobile.
I advanced to Service Sales Manager in 1983.
In 1985 I was promoted to Parts Coordinator of the Oldsmobile and Isuzu
Dealerships.
In 1987 I was offered a position as General Manager of a AC/Delco 3M
wholesale distributor. This was a relative small company that was very
profitable while I was employeed there. The retirement plan was extremely
attractive and afforded me the opportunity to retire in 1995 at age 40. One
of the owners that was my age retired 5 years later as a millionaire.
In 1997 I started my own Woodworking business so that I could do what I
wanted to do and make money in the process. From year 1 I have been
profitable and work at my leasure.

So from 1978 to the present I have been involved in woodworking. That is
about 25 years.
I was in the Automotive field from 1972 untill 1995 when I retired at age
40. That is about 23 years.
Since 1997 I have been self employeed to keep my self busy. That has been
about 7 years.
I will be 49 next month.


I find it hard to believe that you are being honest about what you say.
I'd
hardly be surprised to find that you have some financial interest in this
device though you claim you do not. The other explanation would be that
you
are a troll.

Now, I can assure you I have absolutely no financial interest in SawStop
unless my mutual funds portfolio include SawStop. To tell you the truth
there are hundreds of companies that my mutual funds invest in and I could
not name one company off the top of my head.
As far as being a troll, No, not a troll, I have been a very active
participant in this news group since early 1999 maybe 2000 IIRC. I doubt
any one would consider me a troll. That said, the poster of this SawStop
thread posted this thread under another thread started by Jim Mc. If there
is a troll, it would be Gary Milliorn. He is the one that has dropped this
piece of bait that started this OT conversation under another thread and has
yet to mention a peep since his original post as far as I can see.

(you have claimed both) and with
both of those activities you are still too broke to buy this thing and are
wishing for government regulation so that economy of scale will bring the
price to the point where you can afford it.

Well certainly not broke and certainly not rich but very comfortably retired
at 48. I can certainly afford the SawStop brand saw now but like I have run
businesses and run my business now I choose not to buy a whole new saw now
when my current saw is 3 years old. When I do replace my saw I will go for
stop system similar to the one we are talking about. I did not retire at 40
by spending frivolously.

Go gettem Chris...

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:37:33 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

I wonder why the electric break on so many miter saws could not be beefed up
to perform as well as the saw stop.
A simple pin ingauges a hole in the blade or arbor and stops the blade. No,
I have not read the whole petition but From what every one is saying, I
would be inclined to think that the petition requires "LIKE" or better
performance and not the same way to achieve "LIKE " performance. A little
imagination should acomplish the same thing.

The physics of bringing a blade to a stop quickly enough to avoid
serious injury pretty much dictate that you will destroy the mechanism
and probably the blade in the process. Any shaft-braked system would
put so much force into the stopping mechanism it would likely break
the shaft, as you beef up the shaft to get around that problem you are
increasing the rotating mass that you have to stop. It is also
imperative that any system disengage the motor in the same instant,
and it really needs to be a positive disengage, not merely slacking a
belt because there is plenty of drag from even a loose belt.

The biggest challenge is that there is really no system other than the
one SawStop uses that is acceptable for detecting contact with a
finger or something. The use of that technology in that application
seems to be part of their patent.

Were I running SawStop I'd license the technology to any manufacturer
who wanted it for $5.00 a saw. All I would have to do then is sit back
and cash checks, something that even I could do. If the license fee is
low enough and the perceived benefit high enough the manufacturers
will diddle the technology to make it cheaper and more efficient.
Everybody wins until someone actually comes up with a system that
works as well and is outside the original patent.


Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Now, I can assure you I have absolutely no financial interest in SawStop
unless my mutual funds portfolio include SawStop. To tell you the truth
there are hundreds of companies that my mutual funds invest in and I could
not name one company off the top of my head.
As far as being a troll, No, not a troll, I have been a very active
participant in this news group since early 1999 maybe 2000 IIRC. I doubt
any one would consider me a troll. That said, the poster of this SawStop
thread posted this thread under another thread started by Jim Mc. If
there
is a troll, it would be Gary Milliorn. He is the one that has dropped
this
piece of bait that started this OT conversation under another thread and
has
yet to mention a peep since his original post as far as I can see.

(you have claimed both) and with
both of those activities you are still too broke to buy this thing and
are
wishing for government regulation so that economy of scale will bring
the
price to the point where you can afford it.

Well certainly not broke and certainly not rich but very comfortably
retired
at 48. I can certainly afford the SawStop brand saw now but like I have
run
businesses and run my business now I choose not to buy a whole new saw now
when my current saw is 3 years old. When I do replace my saw I will go
for
stop system similar to the one we are talking about. I did not retire at
40
by spending frivolously.


OK, I understand that. I hope you will accept my apologies for calling you a
troll.

-Jack

"I really hate spam." wrote in message
...


You're not in the market for a saw right now. But, you want saw stop
badly enough that you want anybody who wishes to buy a brand new
tablesaw to be forced to include it at a significant price, just to be
sure that it is available when you do want it. The real question,
then, is why you don't put yourself in the market for a new saw now,
while it is guaranteed to be available?

Good gosh, get a grip here. My openions are not going to steer the
governmant one way or the other. Damn ,can't I put in a wish list like any
one else. Just because I don't mind the government getting involved in this
instance and don't care what tactics were used to bring the product to
market does not mean that you or my openion is not a valid one.


I've seen you mention your relatively new Jet in other parts of this
thread. If it's pretty new, and you keep it in good shape, you can
probably sell it for a pretty large percentage of the original price,
right?

Well do a little research on resale of used tools. I have not checked but a
3 year old Jet used in a business would probably only fetch 1/2 the original
price. So we are probably talking in excess of $1000 for the upgrade.

If you do that, then buy a new saw with Sawstop installed,
you'll only be out a few hundred dollars. Well, Sawstop saws aren't
cheap...maybe you'll be out a thousand extra dollars. But so what,
right?

That type of thinking explains a lot. While you don't want any one telling
you what to do, you certainly are over flowing with ideas of how to spend my
money. That is fine, I can ignore them as you can too. Does that sound
like your reason to not go with the plan? You don't want some one telling
you what to buy? Take your own advise.

I want to see the new saw feature implimented. In this instance if the
government gets involoved fine. If you don't want to have the government
involved in the purchase, fine. We both are entitled in our thoughts and
openions. You surely do not have to buy a new saw with this feature, go buy
one now before the mandate goes into effect. Ahh but then that would be me
telling you how to spend your money... Thats life....

Safety is far more important than anything...more important
than personal liberty, more important than the ability to choose to
buy a less expensive saw without this feature in the future; it would
have to be more important than mere money, wouldn't it?

ABSOLUTELY... I would galdly give up a single choice" freedom" rather than
not be afforded the opportunity to buy a saw in the future with this
feature.


You don't want to do this now, though. You're happy enough with your
Jet...without Sawstop technology...that you're willing to keep it, at
your own personal risk, just to save a few dollars.

I guess you would be doing the same right? Is that wrong?

You don't want to give others...like me, a young guy who can't afford a
good tablesaw
just yet, for both monetary and spatial reasons...that same option in
the future.

Don't blame this on me, I have nothing to do with it. I am totally not
involved in the process other than wishing for something that you dont wish
for. Argue with those that will make a difference, that is your right. But
****in and moaning in front of me will change nothing. You talk about
personal freedom and you you attack my way of thinking.... Hummmm

You want the government to take that option away, just to
be sure that this product survives long enough for you to decide that
it is worth your money, even if it isn't a good enough value for the
price that it would make it on its own.

No. I do not want the governmant to be involved unless it is the only way to
see this come to light.

I have to disagree with you.

Good for you Eric, you shoud be afforded right to always have you openion
and you should also remember that others will disagree with you. Keep in
mind though, your wishes will not always be of popular openion or come true
and your rights do not superceed others rights and visa versa. We simply
disagree and that is that.

In a few years, when my wife and I have
earned enough to move on to a bigger place, and I'm looking for a saw
for my shop, I want to be able to choose whether or not to get a
safety device that adds cost to the saw.

I sencerely hope you are able to fulfill your wants and dreams and choose
the saw you want. The future is full of surprises, some good some bad.
Family should always come first and taking care of your self in the shop
helps you and your family. A price cannot really be put on you ability to
provide income for your family.

Maybe it will be
Sawstop...if it proves its worth without government mandate. Maybe it
will be a different option, one that has proven its value is worth the
cost, without its manufacturer forcing itself on us. Or, just maybe,
as with so many other things in life, I will have to accept that there
are nearly unacceptable risks involved with things that I want to do,
and I will be forced to decide if those risks are outweighed by the
benefits that taking them will bring.
Eric Ryan

Maybe the SawStop will cause manufacturers to design an entirely different
saw that totally side steps all implications that the SawStop addresses. It
could be the shot in the arm that this industry needs. Imagine the laser
technology going full bore and blades being replaced by the laser. The
laser is already being used to carve and etch wood... I doubt it would be
more dangerous than as spinning blade. The light could be programmed to
only recognize and cut wood in much the same way the SawStop recognises you
flesh vs. the wood it is cutting. Imagine a thin light pointing up through
a 3/4" board 1" vs. several square inches that a blade displays. The TS
could operate as a band saw or scroll saw also.

"Alan Bierbaum" wrote in message
s.com...
Since this device is supposedly commercially available; Leon, when is
yours
being delivered, and how much are you asking for your Jet?


Bring me $2000. and I'll order my new SawStop saw as soon as you are loaded
up. :~)

;~) Well Bob.....I am being attacked from so many sides I cannot keep
up...

Sorry Doug.

Doug Winterburn wrote:


Don't really know, but I'd be much more inclined to buy the thing if one
of the $aw$top weenies would demonstrate the effecctiveness with their own
weenie rather than an Oscar-Mayer. I also keep wondering what's next -
circular saws, bandsaws, recprocating saws, radial arm saws, CMS/SCMS? Also wonder about dado
stacks, molding heads, sanding discs, etc.?

-Doug



If these government jackasses are allowed to do as they please,
eventually everything that is not mandatory will be forbidden.

This "nanny state" bull**** has GOT to come to a screeching halt.

CJ

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:vljPa.7490
But I thought you were concerned for your safety, Leon. If you're really
as
concerned as you claim to be, sell your current saw and buy a $aw$top
immediately.

I am concerned about safety.

Concerned enough to buy one? Obviously not.


If the government mandates a safety device of this kind, I will not have
to
worry about IF the product will be available when and if I do purchase
another saw. If the government does not mandate this then I very well
may
miss out on the opportunity along with most every one else.

If you buy it now, you won't have to worry about future availability,
either.


But then I would be doing what you want me to do Doug and I want the choice
of when I will buy it. I don't want anyone telling me when to buy anything.
Wow that sounded kinda like something you would say.

Very revealing.

You object to doing what I want you to do, but you have no hesitation in
asking the government to compel me to do what you want me to do.

You want to retain the choice of when to buy a $aw$top. But you don't want
other people to be allowed the same choice you want for yourself.

You're a hypocrite.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:05:25 +0000, timonjkl wrote:


I would love to have something like this on my saw but I want to pick it
out of a group of choices.

In my thinking if this passes their will only be one saw made by many
companys or no saws made by anyone because their is not any way to change
them and still be compliant ?

I have not seen one of these does it work that well? during cut after cut
and reaching in does it make a diferance?

Don't really know, but I'd be much more inclined to buy the thing if one
of the $aw$top weenies would demonstrate the effecctiveness with their own
weenie rather than an Oscar-Mayer. I also keep wondering what's next -
circular saws, bandsaws, recprocating saws, radial arm saws, CMS/SCMS? Also wonder about dado
stacks, molding heads, sanding discs, etc.?

-Doug