http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

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

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

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

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

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 also wonder if SawStop is paying dudes to cut off their fingers and
sue. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Mar 8, 4:26*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:

http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

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

I couldn't agree more.


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

On 3/8/2010 4:54 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
On Mar 8, 4:26 pm, wrote:
On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:

http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

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

I couldn't agree more.

My problem isn't with the asshat lawyers but with the asshat judge and
asshat jury that let the trial go forward to begin with and then ruled
in favor of the plaintiffs.

And it shows that the other manufacturers were right to not back
sawstop--exactly what was predicted is taking place and in a few years
from now the affordable power saw will cease to exist as they become
laden with lawyer-induced safety features each of which adds its
increment of cost.

"GarageWoodworks" wrote

http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

Suing after you cut your finger off is dumb. Recently I find myself full of
fear every time I want to cut a piece of wood on my saw. I'm a nervous
wreck and the stress is not good for me. I'm going to sue so they put a
flesh detecting device on my saw and enough money for a relaxing vacation.

Get my lawyer on the phone.

On Mar 8, 3:21*pm, GarageWoodworks
wrote:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---www.garagewoodworks.com

HHHMMMMmmmmmm. Which pinkie could I do without?

Hmmmmmmmm!

RonB

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

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

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

Won't survive appeal. It's a shame that the lawyers will be the only
ones to win, here.

scott

-MIKE- 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.

scott

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?

This guy, nails it:

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

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

On 03/08/2010 03:26 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

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

I dislike lawyers as much as the next guy...but I also think it's a bit
odd that none of the other manufacturers has even attempted to come up
with something similar. Surely the Sawstop guys haven't locked down the
patents that tightly.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't own a Sawstop but I'd use
one if someone bought it for me.

Chris

In ,
Scott Lurndal spewed forth:
Swingman writes:
On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

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

Won't survive appeal. It's a shame that the lawyers will be the only
ones to win, here.

scott

Don't bet on it

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

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

absurd
Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:33:18 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 3/8/2010 4:54 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
On Mar 8, 4:26 pm, wrote:
On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:

http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

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

I couldn't agree more.

My problem isn't with the asshat lawyers but with the asshat judge and
asshat jury that let the trial go forward to begin with and then ruled
in favor of the plaintiffs.

And it shows that the other manufacturers were right to not back
sawstop--exactly what was predicted is taking place and in a few years
from now the affordable power saw will cease to exist as they become
laden with lawyer-induced safety features each of which adds its
increment of cost.

Not to mention that the ass hat *could* have bought a Saw Stop if his finger
were that important to him. Seems he is the *only* negligent one.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:34:23 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:



"GarageWoodworks" wrote

http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

Suing after you cut your finger off is dumb. Recently I find myself full of
fear every time I want to cut a piece of wood on my saw. I'm a nervous
wreck and the stress is not good for me. I'm going to sue so they put a
flesh detecting device on my saw and enough money for a relaxing vacation.

Have a beer. I'll sooth your nerves.

Get my lawyer on the phone.

On 3/8/2010 5:13 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:

I dislike lawyers as much as the next guy...but I also think it's a bit
odd that none of the other manufacturers has even attempted to come up
with something similar. Surely the Sawstop guys haven't locked down the
patents that tightly.

The "guy", Steve Gass, _is_ a patent attorney.

Like they say ... one lawyer in a town will starve to death, two and
they'll both get rich.

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

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

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

Irrational... if it was so important why did he buy the saw he purchased?

Due to the irrationality of this suit that gene pool may need terming... He
cut the wrong part off for that though...

On 3/8/10 8:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
To you and KW...
I clearly stated, "I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to
"legislate itself into millions."

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

Don't worry, they have NO history, whatsoever, of doing it out of simple
"goodwill".


If they were trying to lobby for legislation to mandate the use of their
product, at least they have a solution to a real problem, not the
made-up BS that a certain former politician is trying to push down our
throats to pad his pockets. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

So now when you buy a table saw you will have to sign a liability
release that you understand that it doesn't have this safety device
and the manufacuturers will have to offer safety classes which have
been available at the better dealers. Its like the notices on
generators in a dozen languages that says don't run them in your
house. If you buy something it should be your responsibility to know
what your getting into. If your operating equipment it should be the
same.

Mike M

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:44:51 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 3/8/2010 6:08 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 03/08/2010 05:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 3/8/2010 5:13 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:

I dislike lawyers as much as the next guy...but I also think it's a bit
odd that none of the other manufacturers has even attempted to come up
with something similar. Surely the Sawstop guys haven't locked down the
patents that tightly.

The "guy", Steve Gass, _is_ a patent attorney.

He also has a doctorate in physics and claims to have started
woodworking at age 4. The fact that someone who invents something
useful happens to be an attorney shouldn't be held against them.

By dint of name alone, "lawyers" need little else be held against
them...

Like they say ... one lawyer in a town will starve to death, two and
they'll both get rich.

Sure. And I know there was some interesting happenings in the early
days of his idea when he wanted a pretty good premium for the use of the
concept.

A "licensing fee", and apparently nothing has changed with regard to same.

But all the other companies all have patent attorneys as well. I have a
hard time believing that nobody else in the entire industry could have
come up with a flesh-sensing device of their own after the better part
of a decade.

I'd say get used to it, because it's painfully obvious that that's the case.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:18:55 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 3/8/2010 5:57 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:

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

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

Irrational... if it was so important why did he buy the saw he purchased?

Due to the irrationality of this suit that gene pool may need terming... He
cut the wrong part off for that though...

A bit too much in line with the original legal maneuvering and
machinations of the lawyer inventor. Color me cynical, but with that
name, and occupation as hardwood floor installer, odds are that this is
a carefully selected case, tried in a carefully selected venue, with the
plaintiff as a convenient 'victim of opportunity', by greedy lawyers on
contingency, and with more than just the stink of collusion of similar
financial interests.


Wouldn't surprise me seems to me they tried to get OSHA to cram it
down everyones throat and it didn't fly.

Mike M

On 3/9/2010 12:33 AM, Mike M wrote:
So now when you buy a table saw you will have to sign a liability
release that you understand that it doesn't have this safety device
and the manufacuturers will have to offer safety classes which have
been available at the better dealers. Its like the notices on
generators in a dozen languages that says don't run them in your
house. If you buy something it should be your responsibility to know
what your getting into. If your operating equipment it should be the
same.

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

Until somebody shoots every lawyer in Congress and shoots the next batch
that gets elected and keeps shooting them until no lawyer dares run for
Congress that's not going to get fixed. Should have been in the
Constitution--no person who has ever worked as a lawyer should be
eligible for Congress.

On Mar 8, 4:21*pm, GarageWoodworks
wrote:
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---www.garagewoodworks.com

Two questions:

1. Did SawStop fund this guys legal fight?

2. What do regular folks do when they want to sell there table saw to
upgrade?

This decision blows!

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."

How about new legislation, mandating that "any lawyer who loses a
frivial case has to suffer that malady he was ranting about"?

(frivial = trivial + frivolous)

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

GarageWoodworks wrote:

http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

So lets see, the inventor of Saw Stop is a Patent Attorney and gets bored
with not making money with his chosen career. Dreams up this idea of a
Table Saw that can stop the blade on contact with flesh. Tries to push
this new tech. on Saw Manufactures and fails. Decides to start his own
Table Saw Manufacture. I would imagine sales are decent but not decent
enough for the inventor so decides to lobby for this new tech. on every
table saw built today. If the millionaire wins he becomes a billionaire.
Somehow I get the feeling this was the plan when he started the patent
process. Now that's what I call a "Great Business Plan", at of course the
expense of Table Saw Manufactures and Table Saw users all over the
world!!!!

And of course Congress will probably go along with it, since they see the
US citizen as dumb asses with the need to nanny state everything.


You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz

On Mar 9, 10:38*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
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."

Now *there* is a suit. They're advertising that they will protect you
from yourself!

How about new legislation, mandating that "any lawyer who loses a
frivial case has to suffer that malady he was ranting about"?

(frivial = trivial + frivolous)

Wouldn't that be trialous? ;-)

On 08 Mar 2010 22:47:58 GMT, the infamous (Scott
Lurndal) scrawled the following:

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

---
www.garagewoodworks.com

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

Won't survive appeal.

I sure hope not. The McDonalds coffee case was by the judge and
Mickey D's paid only her medical fees. They shouldn't have been forced
to pay anything. The old biddy should have jumped out of the car and
waved her hot clothes in the air to instantly cool them, preventing
the majority of the burns. That's what we do...er, would do if that
ever happened, right?


It's a shame that the lawyers will be the only
ones to win, here.

As usual. It's disgusting. My next door neighbor just lost her
defense of her land from a rich neighbor who wanted it. There are
still squatter's rights here in OR and even though the rich neighbor
couldn't prove that she'd been using the land for 10 years, she had
friends swear that she had and the judge gave it to her.

Friends, our legal, penal, political, and medical systems are severely
broken. Is it time to do more than brew tea?

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

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

On 3/9/2010 12:33 AM, Mike M wrote:
So now when you buy a table saw you will have to sign a liability
release that you understand that it doesn't have this safety device
and the manufacuturers will have to offer safety classes which have
been available at the better dealers. Its like the notices on
generators in a dozen languages that says don't run them in your
house. If you buy something it should be your responsibility to know
what your getting into. If your operating equipment it should be the
same.

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

I think I left the word "remittitured" out of my last post on this
subject. (had to look it up and forgot to go back) The judge
seriously reduced the award, giving her only her medical costs, legal
costs, and a tiny sum which is not to be discussed openly.


Until somebody shoots every lawyer in Congress and shoots the next batch
that gets elected and keeps shooting them until no lawyer dares run for
Congress that's not going to get fixed. Should have been in the
Constitution--no person who has ever worked as a lawyer should be
eligible for Congress.

CONgresscritters should start out their careers with a 2-year stretch
of hard time in a maximum-security pen. Those who survive might be a
bit better grounded on the necessities of life.

The Constitution also should have stated that "Anyone who _seeks_ to
be in office shall never be allowed to do so." The Founders were all
hesitant obligers, and that turned out very well. Look what we have
now! Disgusting.

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

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:35:12 -0600, the infamous
" scrawled the
following:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:34:23 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:



"GarageWoodworks" wrote

http://bit.ly/bUTXOP

Suing after you cut your finger off is dumb. Recently I find myself full of
fear every time I want to cut a piece of wood on my saw. I'm a nervous
wreck and the stress is not good for me. I'm going to sue so they put a
flesh detecting device on my saw and enough money for a relaxing vacation.

Have a beer. I'll sooth your nerves.

Get my lawyer on the phone.

Better yet, if you go drink a fifth of bourbon before using the saw,
you can sue both the distillery and the sawmaker, you wonderful guy!

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

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.

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

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:36:44 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

On 3/8/2010 7:21 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
.. .


I'd be curious to know if he was free handing cuts at the time... If
so he certainly wouldn't be the first flooring guy to guide wood
through the blade sans fence or miter gauge...

thinking about doing that for cross cuts gives me the
heebie-jeebies.... for rips? Doesn't even bear thinking about. I mean,
I guy could lose a finger doing tha.... wait, nevermind...

Ya think...??

LOL ... like the Forrest blade guys at the WW shows, using one of those
little table top saws for demoing paper thin cuts, on a 2"x4"x6" slab of
hardwood, freehand.

What are they gonna do now?

Remember the video of the guy doing freehand cuts on the big bandsaw,
ending up with a reindeer at the end? I was in mortal fear of his
fingers the whole way.

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

Mike M wrote:
So now when you buy a table saw you will have to sign a liability
release that you understand that it doesn't have this safety device
and the manufacuturers will have to offer safety classes which have
been available at the better dealers. Its like the notices on
generators in a dozen languages that says don't run them in your
house. If you buy something it should be your responsibility to know
what your getting into. If your operating equipment it should be the
same.


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!"

"Evodawg" wrote in message
...


So lets see, the inventor of Saw Stop is a Patent Attorney and gets bored
with not making money with his chosen career. Dreams up this idea of a
Table Saw that can stop the blade on contact with flesh. Tries to push
this new tech. on Saw Manufactures and fails. Decides to start his own
Table Saw Manufacture. I would imagine sales are decent but not decent
enough for the inventor so decides to lobby for this new tech. on every
table saw built today. If the millionaire wins he becomes a billionaire.
Somehow I get the feeling this was the plan when he started the patent
process. Now that's what I call a "Great Business Plan", at of course the
expense of Table Saw Manufactures and Table Saw users all over the
world!!!!


This is the part of this discussion that I just don't get. Someone invents
something that actually does have a value and a purpose, and tries to grab
the brass ring. Hell - that is the American way. What is wrong with that?
So he tried to get his invention adopted by all of the manufacturers, so he
started his own company because they all turned him down. What's the big
deal? How is that at the expense of table saw manufacturers? Or users?

You can fault his attempts to mandate his invention by law, but I'm not even
sure I'd fault him for that effort. 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.

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:14:34 -0500, wrote:

On 08 Mar 2010 22:49:57 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

-MIKE- 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.

scott

Some of us would rather be retain possession of all our digits -
fingers are more useful than lawsuits.

I have some small stock (1x2) that needs to be cut to length (maybe 5
mnutes?) but it can wait until morning when I'm not fighting a sinus
headache..

John

....I don't use a guard on my Skilsaw(s), because that's how I was
taught and have vast experience with. I don't let anyone else use my
Skilsaw(s) unless they're equally experienced. Sam Maloof used his
bandsaw in the same manner, and cautioned his audience similarly, too.
Times change, though, and soon enough there will be fewer and fewer of
us Dinos...but you'll be able to use my Powermatic 66 *long* after I'm
gone...cut and count will be around for awhile yet...

AFA Mr. Osario...too bad you took that first puff...

gc

On Mar 9, 11:44*am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
"Evodawg" wrote in message

...



So lets see, the inventor of Saw Stop is a Patent Attorney and gets bored
with not making money with his chosen career. Dreams up this idea of a
Table Saw that can stop the blade on contact with flesh. Tries to push
this new tech. on Saw Manufactures and fails. Decides to start his own
Table Saw Manufacture. I would imagine sales are decent but not decent
enough for the inventor so decides to lobby for this new tech. on every
table saw built today. If the millionaire wins he becomes a billionaire..
Somehow I get the feeling this was the plan when he started the patent
process. Now that's what I call a "Great Business Plan", at of course the
expense of Table Saw Manufactures and Table Saw users all over the
world!!!!

This is the part of this discussion that I just don't get. *Someone invents
something that actually does have a value and a purpose, and tries to grab
the brass ring. *Hell - that is the American way. *What is wrong with that?
So he tried to get his invention adopted by all of the manufacturers, so he
started his own company because they all turned him down. *What's the big
deal? *How is that at the expense of table saw manufacturers? *Or users?

So far, nothing - read on.

You can fault his attempts to mandate his invention by law, but I'm not even
sure I'd fault him for that effort. *

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

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?

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.

Mike Marlow wrote:


"Evodawg" wrote in message
...


So lets see, the inventor of Saw Stop is a Patent Attorney and gets
bored
with not making money with his chosen career. Dreams up this idea of a
Table Saw that can stop the blade on contact with flesh. Tries to push
this new tech. on Saw Manufactures and fails. Decides to start his own
Table Saw Manufacture. I would imagine sales are decent but not decent
enough for the inventor so decides to lobby for this new tech. on every
table saw built today. If the millionaire wins he becomes a
billionaire.
Somehow I get the feeling this was the plan when he started the patent
process. Now that's what I call a "Great Business Plan", at of course
the
expense of Table Saw Manufactures and Table Saw users all over the
world!!!!


This is the part of this discussion that I just don't get. Someone
invents something that actually does have a value and a purpose, and
tries
to grab
the brass ring. Hell - that is the American way. What is wrong with
that? So he tried to get his invention adopted by all of the
manufacturers, so he
started his own company because they all turned him down. What's the
big
deal?

This part of the story is fine and yes it is a wonderful invention. I
agree with his business plan up to this point.

How is that at the expense of table saw manufacturers? Or users?

You can fault his attempts to mandate his invention by law, but I'm not
even
sure I'd fault him for that effort. 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.

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!!! 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.
--
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz

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. 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.


-Kevin

On 3/9/10 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. 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.


-Kevin

Plus, apparently, McD's had been warned several times or sued before
about it or something like that, and that's why the judge ruled in favor
of the lady.

Also, while we think the amount was ridiculous, the way the judge came
up with it, was to calculate the a single day's coffee sales for McD's.
It's akin to fining a MLB player $20,000 for doing something wrong.
It's less than they make for a single at bat.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

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.

*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.

On 3/9/2010 1:26 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.

Bull****. There is in fact a published standard and it calls for coffee
being served at the temperature McDonalds uses.

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".

Some years later there was a lawsuit initiated against Bunn-O-Matic, the
company that makes the coffee makers used by McDonalds and just about
every other restaurant in the US and they trotted out the published
standard and that was the end of that suit.

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.

And I'm sure that any liability lawyer would be more than happy to have
a gullible fool like you in his jury pool.

On 3/9/2010 1:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 3/9/10 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. 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.


-Kevin

Plus, apparently, McD's had been warned several times or sued before
about it or something like that, and that's why the judge ruled in favor
of the lady.

They had been sued. They had not been "warned". Are you suggesting
that someone bringing suit in and of itself constitutes evidence of
wrongdoing?

Also, while we think the amount was ridiculous, the way the judge came
up with it, was to calculate the a single day's coffee sales for McD's.
It's akin to fining a MLB player $20,000 for doing something wrong. It's
less than they make for a single at bat.

The woman came to grief because of her own stupidity. McD was following
published industry standards.