"Evodawg" wrote in message
...


This is where I have a problem. Mandate this invention on all Table Saws?

You have to refresh me - it's been a while since he went through all of his
attempts at things... Did he ever try to get it mandated that all saws
would require SS? I don't recall that ever happening, but it's been a
while. I thought I remembered him lobbying for SS as a requirement for all
new saws though. Frankly, I don't blame him for lobbying for that. As it
turns out though, whether he actually tried that or not, it never happened.
Therefore, we're right back to where we were and I maintain that the issue
is with the jury system and not with his attempts to make a bizillion
dollars.

This is just an attempt to force his will on all. I have a really big
problem with that!!!

I'm with you on the notion of forcing one's will - but... did he really do
that, or is the story getting stretched over time?


You can buy a small table table saw for around
100.00. I use an old Delta which I will call a Miniature Table Saw
probably 2-3 times a week, (off site portable) which I paid 80.00. How
much would it cost to put this SS invention on this saw? More then the saw
is worth. If you can't figure out that using a table saw is dangerous and
you need to use special precautions then you have no reason using it. Have
no problem signing an agreement to hold harmless saw manufactures without
SS.

Again - I don't recall every hearing of a requirement to install SS on all
table saws out there. But, I might have forgotten something. I've been
known to do that...

--

-Mike-

wrote in message
...


You appear to be the only one here.

Oh hell, I'm used to that. Great minds often stand alone...

You don't see a conflict of
interest?

Absolutely not. How do you see a conflict of interest?

He has a state-mandated monopoly (patent) and you don't see
a problem with the state also requiring his device? boggle

A patent is a state-mandated monoploy? Do you realize you cannot patent a
concept, only a method? He has no such monopoly. Anyone can invent their
own technology to do the same thing in a different way. Happens every day.
Would not surprise me if we see a competing idea hit the street soon, now
that a jury of your neighbors and mine have put on their stupid hats.


Any expense to table saw manufacturers
lies solely at the feet of the legal system. Narrow that down a little
further - to the jury system. Your neighbors and mine. You can't even
fault the lawyers - all they do is argue a case. Both sides argue
opposing
sides. It's the people in the box that make the decision.

...and you think this is goodness?

Where did I ever say that? I don't mind defending my ideas, but try to keep
your exceptions to my ideas limited to what I have actually said.


Get real! Saws are dangerous things. We *all* know it, as did the
PROFESSIONAL. Whether we *choose* to use a dangerous tool is our
business, not the nanny-state's.

Good lord - where are you coming from? You need to go back and re-read my
comments. "Get real"??? Kindly point me to what I said that you find so
offensive.

--

-Mike-

"GarageWoodworks" wrote in message
...
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com



The safety feature was pitched to major saw manufacturers by Gass, but
according to SawStop, licensing negotiations broke down and no agreements
were reached...

Could he not sue Sawstop yet, for the broken down negotiations. After all,
this is probably the main reason other manufacturers aren't offering
flesh-detecting technology.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:26:15 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.

How do I word this softly? "I can't wait for some idiot to get hurt on
his SawStop saw to prove that they can't keep idiots from hurting
themselves."



If you come up with something idiot proof, they'll just come up with better
idiots.

This is where I have a problem. Mandate this invention on all Table Saws?
This is just an attempt to force his will on all. I have a really big
problem with that!!!

Remember when you could buy a gasoline powered lawnmower that would just
start and run when you pulled the cord ?
and keep running thereafter until you shut it off ?

Now you have to HOLD the safety interlock on the handle or it will shut
off... I find that a major PITA.
Same goes for the little BEAM sensors on garage doors.

On 03/09/2010 06:04 PM, Rudy wrote:

Now you have to HOLD the safety interlock on the handle or it will shut
off... I find that a major PITA.

I don't find that a problem at all. If I need to let go it turns off,
and when I come back I yank it again.

Same goes for the little BEAM sensors on garage doors.

The beam sensor kept my bike trailer from getting crushed a couple days
ago...my wife was coming inside, hit the overhead door switch, and
didn't notice the trailer was slowly rolling under the door...

Chris

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 9, 12:26*pm, Kevin wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"

wrote:
That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
spilling coffee in her lap.

McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
the industry standard.

This is a lie that has been handed down for ages. The coffee was
served at a customary serving temperature (180F). Dunkin' Donuts
served coffee at *exactly* the same temperature (their spec was 180F
+/- 3F) at the time.

You're right in that it wasn't a standard. I studied this case in
college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. McDonald's
coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. I forget the exact numbers we used but
we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
degree burns instead of third degree burns.


*While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
standard. *

BS. You don't want burns, don't put a cup of coffee between your
legs.

Most people wouldn't expect to receive third degree burns requiring
skin grafts and years of treatment to recover. People blamed her not
removing the pants as the source of the problem but the analysis
showed that there was nothing she could have done about it. The jury
did find her partially to blame, though I do think most of the blame
rested on her.

The point is that this case is always trotted out as the worst example
but it's not as cut and dry as it is presented. I have a hard time
believing there's as good of a story to back up the fellow that wants
the safety feature from a $3000 saw on his $100 Ryobi.

-Kevin

On 2010-03-09 13:10:57 -0500, " said:

You appear to be the only one here. You don't see a conflict of
interest? He has a state-mandated monopoly (patent) and you don't see
a problem with the state also requiring his device? boggle

Nope -- he offered to license the technology (perhaps the fee was
higher than some might deem appropriate, but's that's not _really_ the
issue). The others were certainly free to develop their own systems.

What seems to gall many writing in this thread is that with a mandated
safety system, there well be no _cheap_ (read: inexpensive) saws. That
means no saws built to a price point for the HDs of this world. Is that
a bad thing? If that's all you think you could afford, yes, it's bad.

If you're DELTA hawking a new Unisaw, yeah, it's bad, because your
price point is in the neighborhood of the SawStop.

If you're a hand surgeon (Anyone out there falling into this category?
Hands, please!) this is a bad thing because it's gonna affect your
livelihood. Conversly, this is a good thing for insurance companies...
but you knew that.

If you'd like to keep your fingers where they belong (on your hands, of
course -- what did you think I meant?) then this is a damn good thing.

The price of a SawStop (irrespectively of the technology, I'm told this
is a GOOD machine) is real cheap insurance. The repair of a partially
severed tendon ten years ago (don't ask, it wasn't in the shop) was
$3,500. Granted, you can barely see the scar, but I'd much rather have
spent that on something else.

I'm pretty new to woodshop. I gulped at the price when I first saw the
SawStop, but I made the decsion right then and there this would be my
next TS. And I will be plunking down the cash real soon.

So, is the management of SawStop ethical in pushing for the safety mandate?

For me, it's not an issue.

On 3/9/2010 11:23 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Imagine the Far Side cartoon showing a horde of Vikings storming the castle.
Arrows are flying, boiling oil being poured, swords vs. axes on the
ramparts, and on the top of the nearest scaling ladder: "Not a Step!"

LOL!

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Mar 8, 5:43*pm, RonB wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:21*pm, GarageWoodworks
wrote:

http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---www.garagewoodworks.com

HHHMMMMmmmmmm. * Which pinkie could I do without?

Hmmmmmmmm!

RonB

Pinkies, you need to play piano. Better one of your toes.

On 2010-03-09 17:48:42 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
said:

I'm with you on the notion of forcing one's will - but... did he really
do that, or is the story getting stretched over time?

Probably, c.f. Toyota.

On 2010-03-09 17:32:50 -0500, "J. Clarke" said:

The lawyers went around and found some crappy diners and the like that
served lukewarm coffee and claimed that that was some kind of
"standard".

It is now, damnit!

On 3/9/2010 9:46 PM, Steve wrote:

I'm pretty new to woodshop. I gulped at the price when I first saw the
SawStop, but I made the decsion right then and there this would be my
next TS. And I will be plunking down the cash real soon.

It's a damn good thing, because the choice will soon be out of your
hands, and shortly after that you won't be able to buy a dado stack
because it is too dangerous for a fool who needs to be protected from
himself.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:21:04 -0800 (PST), the infamous
"SonomaProducts.com" scrawled the following:

Just to go against the grain, I kind of wish it would get mandated,
then maybe in mass production it would become more affordable. I try
to be as safe as possible, number one priority, but I still feel a
little stupid every time I use my ole flesh eating Powermatic TS. If I
loose a finger I'll feel even stupider... forever. I wish I had a Saw
Stop. I can't think I'll buy any new saw except a swa stop. I just
wish they were cheaper or the feature was availble on more saws.

Yeah, the SawStop is not a bad idea at all, but to add one at double
the cost of a saw just irks me to no end.

Open message to SawStop: OK, I'm sold. I'll give you my classic and
not so pristine Davis & Wells saw, named Dina, for one of your 102"
rail, left tilt, 12" models, just so you'll feel better about my
safety. Is it a deal?


--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:58:27 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

On 3/8/2010 4:49 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On 3/8/10 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP


I wonder if Ryobi's lawyers even asked if he took off the saw guard.
I would bet a high end SawStop that he no guard on the saw.

I've seen a couple of construction workers and a bunch of amateur
homeowners crosscutting freehand on these portable table saws. They
eventually get what they deserve.

"Carlos Osorio", a hardwood floor installer ... hmmmmm, wonder if he was
fresh from Home Depot?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha! My thoughts ran that direction, too.


This guy, nails it:

http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/e...e-saw-not-good

Yeah, good article.

--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu

In ,
Rudy spewed forth:
This is where I have a problem. Mandate this invention on all Table
Saws? This is just an attempt to force his will on all. I have a
really big problem with that!!!

Remember when you could buy a gasoline powered lawnmower that would
just start and run when you pulled the cord ?
and keep running thereafter until you shut it off ?

Now you have to HOLD the safety interlock on the handle or it will
shut off... I find that a major PITA.
Same goes for the little BEAM sensors on garage doors.

way i solved the beam sensors was to mount them on the ceiling about a foot
in front of the opener pointed at each other about a foot apart

In ,
Larry Jaques spewed forth:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
scrawled the following:

In
,
GarageWoodworks spewed forth:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

absurd
Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool

Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.

outta be a no limit all season on 'em
kinda like feral pigs here in tejasg

On 3/9/2010 9:33 PM, Kevin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"

wrote:
That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
spilling coffee in her lap.

McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
the industry standard.

This is a lie that has been handed down for ages. The coffee was
served at a customary serving temperature (180F). Dunkin' Donuts
served coffee at *exactly* the same temperature (their spec was 180F
+/- 3F) at the time.

You're right in that it wasn't a standard.

ANSI CM-1.

I studied this case in
college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. McDonald's
coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees.

As it should be.

I forget the exact numbers we used but
we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
degree burns instead of third degree burns.

Tell it to ANSI, SCAA, and every other authority on the brewing of coffee.

While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
standard.

BS. You don't want burns, don't put a cup of coffee between your
legs.

Most people wouldn't expect to receive third degree burns requiring
skin grafts and years of treatment to recover.

Then most people are idiots.

People blamed her not
removing the pants as the source of the problem but the analysis
showed that there was nothing she could have done about it. The jury
did find her partially to blame, though I do think most of the blame
rested on her.

Of course there was. She could have not held the cup between her legs.

The point is that this case is always trotted out as the worst example
but it's not as cut and dry as it is presented.

Yes, it is, until the lawyers get involved.

I have a hard time
believing there's as good of a story to back up the fellow that wants
the safety feature from a $3000 saw on his $100 Ryobi.

The lawyers will make one up and cherry pick their data to support their
argument, just like the ones in the McDonalds case.

On 3/9/2010 10:50 PM, Steve wrote:
On 2010-03-09 17:32:50 -0500, "J. Clarke" said:

The lawyers went around and found some crappy diners and the like that
served lukewarm coffee and claimed that that was some kind of "standard".

It is now, damnit!

If you mean the lawyers lie, then no, it is NOT a standard NOW damnit.
The lawyers tried to get Bunn-O-Matic with the same argument and Bunn
trotted out the published industry standards and made the lawyers look
like total idiots.

On 3/10/2010 12:28 AM, ChairMan wrote:
In ,
Larry spewed forth:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
scrawled the following:

In
,
spewed forth:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

absurd
Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool

Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.

outta be a no limit all season on 'em
kinda like feral pigs here in tejasg

Lawyers, politicians, and journalists. A pox on all their houses.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:05:45 -0600, the infamous
" scrawled the
following:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:54:56 -0600, -MIKE- wrote:

On 3/8/10 4:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
This guy, nails it:

http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/e...e-saw-not-good


Except for one glaringly wrong statement...

"... SawStop, a technology company that invented a table saw tech that
senses capacitance of a finger and immediately stops the blade....have
been active in mandating this technology across all table saws. The
problem, of course, is that they aren't doing this out of good will -
they want to license it and make a fortune. Quite simply, SawStop wants
to legislate itself into millions.

While I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to "legislate
itself into millions," to say they should do it out of good will is
absurd.

The act of inventing the technology in and of itself is "good will"
enough. They should be able to make a billion dollars from it. As long
as their business practices are fair and ethical, no one should complain
one iota about it.

As long as...

Having their (legitimate) patent monopoly made into an absolute monopoly by
congress (or judge) isn't part of your "as long as", IMO. If they convince
everyone that they need the technology, fine, the price will reflect the
decision. Doing otherwise will effectively ban table saws until the patent
expires.

Bingo. Methinks the guys may have been in cahoots with the ambulance
chasers in search of monopoly and wealth.

--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:32:41 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

Relax, just trying to dipstick your ken of the historical context.

Egad! What'll Barbie think of her Ken being dipsticked?

(strange waking moments from Oregon)

--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu

On Mar 9, 8:33*pm, Kevin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, Kevin wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"

wrote:
That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
spilling coffee in her lap.

McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
the industry standard.

This is a lie that has been handed down for ages. *The coffee was
served at a customary serving temperature (180F). *Dunkin' Donuts
served coffee at *exactly* the same temperature (their spec was 180F
+/- 3F) at the time.

You're right in that it wasn't a standard. *I studied this case in
college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. *McDonald's
coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. *I forget the exact numbers we used but
we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
length of time it took to get there. *If you were at the high end 190
it was much worse than the low end of 180. *If you used the lower
temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
degree burns instead of third degree burns.

Nonsense. The energy contained in a liquid is proportional to its
temperature (difference).

While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
standard.

BS. *You don't want burns, don't put a cup of coffee between your
legs.

Most people wouldn't expect to receive third degree burns requiring
skin grafts and years of treatment to recover. *People blamed her not
removing the pants as the source of the problem but the analysis
showed that there was nothing she could have done about it. *The jury
did find her partially to blame, though I do think most of the blame
rested on her. *

Most people are bright enough not to put a cup of steaming coffee
between their legs. Most people are bright enough to blame themselves
when they do something stupid. Alas, this is changing in your prized
nanny state.

The point is that this case is always trotted out as the worst example
but it's not as cut and dry as it is presented. *I have a hard time
believing there's as good of a story to back up the fellow that wants
the safety feature from a $3000 saw on his $100 Ryobi.

Yes, it is cut and dried. The lawyers lied, their expert witnesses
lied, the press lied (no surprise in any of this), and the defendant's
lawyers weren't bright enough to hire competent expert witnesses on
their own. ...so now you can't get a decent cup of coffee and you
want to take table saws away too. Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

On Mar 10, 8:52*am, " wrote:

*Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

How rational.

On Mar 9, 9:46*pm, Steve wrote:
On 2010-03-09 13:10:57 -0500, " said:

You appear to be the only one here. *You don't see a conflict of
interest? *He has a state-mandated monopoly (patent) and you don't see
a problem with the state also requiring his device? boggle

Nope -- he offered to license the technology (perhaps the fee was
higher than some might deem appropriate, but's that's not _really_ the
issue). The others were certainly free to develop their own systems.

Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you think
the "license fees" would be more reasonable?

What seems to gall many writing in this thread is that with a mandated
safety system, there well be no _cheap_ (read: inexpensive) saws. That
means no saws built to a price point for the HDs of this world. Is that
a bad thing? If that's all you think you could afford, yes, it's bad.

Yes, it is BAD. Do you think SawStops would be cheaper if they were
MANDATED?

If you're DELTA hawking a new Unisaw, yeah, it's bad, because your
price point is in the neighborhood of the SawStop.

If I'm me, it's bad because I wouldn't have (didn't, in fact) buy a
SawStop because the feature isn't worth the money. I bought a Unisaw
because it was affordable. If it were mandated I likely wouldn't have
bought any saw.

If you're a hand surgeon (Anyone out there falling into this category?
Hands, please!) this is a bad thing because it's gonna affect your
livelihood. Conversly, this is a good thing for insurance companies...
but you knew that.

Lets make cars illegal too. You know how much money is wasted on
medical care for accident victims?

If you'd like to keep your fingers where they belong (on your hands, of
course -- what did you think I meant?) then this is a damn good thing.

What an asinine argument. Isn't it better to not get your fingers in
the path of a blade. It seems plenty of people manage to do just
that.

The price of a SawStop (irrespectively of the technology, I'm told this
is a GOOD machine) is real cheap insurance. The repair of a partially
severed tendon ten years ago (don't ask, it wasn't in the shop) was
$3,500. Granted, you can barely see the scar, but I'd much rather have
spent that on something else.

I'd rather, and did, spend the money for a SawStop on something else.

I'm pretty new to woodshop. I gulped at the price when I first saw the
SawStop, but I made the decsion right then and there this would be my
next TS. And I will be plunking down the cash real soon.

Goody for you. I plan to keep my fingers out of the business parts on
my Unisaw. I looked at a SawStop, but at twice the price of the
Unisaw it was a non-starter. Choice is a good thing.

So, is the management of SawStop ethical in pushing for the safety mandate?

For me, it's not an issue.

Goody for you. It's obvious that you're the only one who matters.

On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:52 am, wrote:

Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

How rational.

Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?

Me, I prefer to just say: "**** all you liberal *******s".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Mar 10, 9:15*am, Swingman wrote:
On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:52 am, *wrote:

* Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

How rational.

Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?

Me, I prefer to just say: "**** all you liberal *******s". *



But that too is divisive.
..
..
..g,d,& r

On 3/10/2010 8:41 AM, Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 10, 9:15 am, wrote:
On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:52 am, wrote:

Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

How rational.

Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?

Me, I prefer to just say: "**** all you liberal *******s".



But that too is divisive.
.
.
.g,d,& r


Then why the *******s keep multiplying, cher?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Mar 10, 9:59*am, Swingman wrote:
On 3/10/2010 8:41 AM, Robatoy wrote:





On Mar 10, 9:15 am, *wrote:
On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:52 am, * *wrote:

* *Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

How rational.

Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?

Me, I prefer to just say: "**** all you liberal *******s". *

But that too is divisive.
.
.
.g,d,& *r

Then why the *******s keep multiplying, cher?

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

That's because they keep poking their noses and other parts where they
have no business.
That makes them a Librul.

On Mar 10, 7:41*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 10, 9:15*am, Swingman wrote:

On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:52 am, *wrote:

* Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

How rational.

Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?

Me, I prefer to just say: "**** all you liberal *******s". *

But that too is divisive.
.
.
.g,d,& r

Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
previous, similar lawsuit?

http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/e...awstop-lawsuit

Isn't that the greedy capitalist, then, and NOT the leftist
lawyers .... ?

On Mar 10, 11:01*am, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Mar 10, 7:41*am, Robatoy wrote:



On Mar 10, 9:15*am, Swingman wrote:

On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:52 am, *wrote:

* Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

How rational.

Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?

Me, I prefer to just say: "**** all you liberal *******s". *

But that too is divisive.
.
.
.g,d,& r

Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
previous, similar lawsuit?

http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/e...ls-sawstop-law...

Isn't that the greedy capitalist, then, and NOT the leftist
lawyers .... ?

Not greedy capitalist, rather wannabe crony capitalist, which isn't a
capitalist at all.

On Mar 10, 12:01*pm, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Mar 10, 7:41*am, Robatoy wrote:





On Mar 10, 9:15*am, Swingman wrote:

On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:52 am, *wrote:

* Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

How rational.

Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?

Me, I prefer to just say: "**** all you liberal *******s". *

But that too is divisive.
.
.
.g,d,& r

Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
previous, similar lawsuit?

http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/e...ls-sawstop-law...

Isn't that the greedy capitalist, then, and NOT the leftist
lawyers .... ?

Excellent question.

Neil Brooks wrote:

On Mar 10, 7:41 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 10, 9:15 am, Swingman wrote:

On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:52 am,
wrote:

Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.

How rational.

Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?

Me, I prefer to just say: "**** all you liberal *******s".

But that too is divisive.
.
.
.g,d,& r

Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
previous, similar lawsuit?

http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/e...tools-sawstop-
lawsuit

Isn't that the greedy capitalist, then, and NOT the leftist
lawyers .... ?
Hmmmm, in the article it says, he's a lawyer! So maybe he's a leftist
lawyer and a greedy capitalist. Does that make him a moderate???
--
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz

"ChairMan" wrote in message
om...
In ,
Larry Jaques spewed forth:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
scrawled the following:

In
,
GarageWoodworks spewed forth:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

absurd
Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool

Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.

outta be a no limit all season on 'em
kinda like feral pigs here in tejasg

The sport in that would get old in a hurry as there are so many of them.
And what do you do with the carcass? It would be so full of **** that
the meat would be useless. I'd like to see a bounty on them with the
carcasses rendered into oil. That should help solve 2 problems.
Art

Artemus wrote:
"ChairMan" wrote in message
om...
In ,
Larry Jaques spewed forth:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
scrawled the following:

In
,
GarageWoodworks spewed forth:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

absurd
Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool

Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.

outta be a no limit all season on 'em
kinda like feral pigs here in tejasg

The sport in that would get old in a hurry as there are so many of
them. And what do you do with the carcass? It would be so full of
**** that the meat would be useless. I'd like to see a bounty on
them with the carcasses rendered into oil. That should help solve 2
problems.
Art

do like they did with wolves. you only have to turn in the ears.

they stopped using rendered whale oil a long time ago. what would you
propose we do with rendered lawyer oil? there's only so many swiss watches
needing lubrication.

"chaniarts" wrote in message
...
Artemus wrote:
"ChairMan" wrote in message
om...
In ,
Larry Jaques spewed forth:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
scrawled the following:

In
,
GarageWoodworks spewed forth:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

absurd
Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool

Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.

outta be a no limit all season on 'em
kinda like feral pigs here in tejasg

The sport in that would get old in a hurry as there are so many of
them. And what do you do with the carcass? It would be so full of
**** that the meat would be useless. I'd like to see a bounty on
them with the carcasses rendered into oil. That should help solve 2
problems.
Art

do like they did with wolves. you only have to turn in the ears.

they stopped using rendered whale oil a long time ago. what would you
propose we do with rendered lawyer oil? there's only so many swiss watches
needing lubrication.


I was thinking diesel or gasoline.
OTOH a kamasutra type oil would be a natural as lawyers are(or were
in this case) amazingly slippery and always good at screwing people.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:52:58 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 9, 8:33*pm, Kevin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "

You're right in that it wasn't a standard. *I studied this case in
college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. *McDonald's
coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. *I forget the exact numbers we used but
we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
length of time it took to get there. *If you were at the high end 190
it was much worse than the low end of 180. *If you used the lower
temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
degree burns instead of third degree burns.

Nonsense. The energy contained in a liquid is proportional to its
temperature (difference).

What is so hard to understand about the fact that the hotter something
is the faster it burns you? Whether it takes 2 seconds or 2 minutes
to achieve a certain level of burn is significant.

-Kevin

Somebody had to.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:13:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


I forget the exact numbers we used but
we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
degree burns instead of third degree burns.

Tell it to ANSI, SCAA, and every other authority on the brewing of coffee.

I guess since I'm such a fool I don't know the difference between
brewing and serving temperature.


-Kevin

On 3/10/2010 5:27 PM, Kevin wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:13:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


I forget the exact numbers we used but
we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
degree burns instead of third degree burns.

Tell it to ANSI, SCAA, and every other authority on the brewing of coffee.

I guess since I'm such a fool I don't know the difference between
brewing and serving temperature.

What makes you think that there is such a difference other than that
some scumbag lawyer said so?