"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Max" wrote in message
eb.com...
"Leon" wrote:

So how will you know when your common sense is gone? Seems to me common
sence would indicate that you and I both are imperfect and that neither
of us is prepaired for each and every possible accident that might
happen in the future. Commen sense tells me that I am imperfect, I can
make a mistake, and that I may not know that I am no longer capable
untill I do something that may lead to an accident.

I have, over the years, accumulated some bit of knowledge of the function
of the human mind. My minor in college was psychology and my interest in
the subject has continued ever since. I have read all of Steven Pinker's
tomes as well as those of several other authors whose expertise on the
subject attracted my attention. As I have approached my more mature
years it has occurred to me that it would be wise to study the effects of
aging. As such, I have acquired some notion of the tribulations for
which I felt wise to prepare. I do not approach the afflictions of aging
blindly.
You are obviously possessed of some of the problems that age will cause
or you wouldn't have expressed your concern in the matter.
Self awareness can be a valuable asset in addressing potential pitfalls.
I like to believe that I am somewhat "self-aware".
In addition, I have a son who visits my shop regularly. He has no
reservations about offering constructive criticism. G
I already have plans for the day I will sell or otherwise dispose of my
shop equipment and undertake other activities that interest me.
My other hobbies include photography, RV travel, reading and writing.
Your concern and advice is, as always, appreciated.


I made this comment before another comment that you made and I am in
agreement with you all the way now, I simply misunderstood your position.
We agree now to,,,,agree. ;!)



Thanks, Leon.

Max

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:50 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:27:33 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
Has someone dictated/mandated/legislated that you use saw stopping
blade technology?

IIRC, the inventor was lobbying for just such legislation.

Plus, he wanted so much in royalties and licensing that ALL of the
manufacturers told him to shove it up his ass. I believe it was after
that happened that he chose to force the issue, to pursue mandatory
use via lobbying. What a jerk.

Making things up Larry? Wher exactly did you read that the manufacturers
"told him to shove it up his ass". And peronally I thought the royalties
were perfectly in line. So your point of view is simply that. But
resorting to make up what actually went down to suit your own slant is
pretty rediculious. You are working yourself into a bigger lather the
more
you make things up.

What you thought of the royalties is meaningless, unless you're planning
on
building table saws. The table saw manufacturers *obviously* didn't agree
with you. The inventor *did* attempt to force the issue.


So that naturally means what Larry thought about the royalties is also
meaningless. I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any
reasonable offer. Really and truly why increase the expense of an item if
you don't have to. No one had to and still no one has to but if they want
to stay in business they may have to. Now that the SawStop is succeeding
on its own I doubt that obtaining the technology or license is going to be
as reasonable as it was when originally offered unless the Whirlwind or like
product can come up with an equal alternative solution.

Wait until you have to pay big bucks to get a sliver removed at the doctor
despite national healthcare paid for in your taxes, due to a collapsed
budget from all the carefree safety lazy idiots causing themselves
injuries. You USanians have not begun to see the light national healthcare
delivers.

It suddenly becomes EVERYBODY's business.

Any smokers we can charge a premium for coverage?....LOL


"CW" wrote in message
news I get a kick out of how people unwittingly broadcast their bias. By
using the term gadget - a dismissive term, you are doing simply that -
dismissing anyone else's rationale.

You know that a tread has gone on beyond usefulness when people start
claiming to "psychoanalyze" others motives for their position. Hitler
people, Hitler.


"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 9:17 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
lcb11211@swbell.

I am not trying to sell you any thing and am not suggesting that you buy
any
safety equipment. I am only saying that only a naive person thinks that
he
knows enough to prevent every possible scenario that could lead to an
accident.

However only a naive person thinks that expensive gadgets will make them
"safe".

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:48:44 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:50 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:27:33 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
Has someone dictated/mandated/legislated that you use saw stopping
blade technology?

IIRC, the inventor was lobbying for just such legislation.

Plus, he wanted so much in royalties and licensing that ALL of the
manufacturers told him to shove it up his ass. I believe it was after
that happened that he chose to force the issue, to pursue mandatory
use via lobbying. What a jerk.

Making things up Larry? Wher exactly did you read that the manufacturers
"told him to shove it up his ass". And peronally I thought the royalties
were perfectly in line. So your point of view is simply that. But
resorting to make up what actually went down to suit your own slant is
pretty rediculious. You are working yourself into a bigger lather the
more
you make things up.

What you thought of the royalties is meaningless, unless you're planning
on
building table saws. The table saw manufacturers *obviously* didn't agree
with you. The inventor *did* attempt to force the issue.


So that naturally means what Larry thought about the royalties is also
meaningless.

Only past the point where he agrees with the ones who are PAYING THE BILL.

I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any reasonable offer.

Facts that are not in evidence.

Really and truly why increase the expense of an item if
you don't have to.

Unless enough are willing to *PAY* for that expense, plus the uplift
necessary, no, you wouldn't increase an expense. To do so would be silly, if
not suicidal.

No one had to and still no one has to but if they want
to stay in business they may have to.

That's the point. SawStop's inventor tried to make that happen. You
apparently think that's a good thing.

Now that the SawStop is succeeding
on its own I doubt that obtaining the technology or license is going to be
as reasonable as it was when originally offered unless the Whirlwind or like
product can come up with an equal alternative solution.

I certainly wish them all the luck. I know I won't be buying one.

In article ,
says...

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 9:17 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
lcb11211@swbell.

I am not trying to sell you any thing and am not suggesting that you buy
any
safety equipment. I am only saying that only a naive person thinks that
he
knows enough to prevent every possible scenario that could lead to an
accident.

However only a naive person thinks that expensive gadgets will make them
"safe".

I get a kick out of how people unwittingly broadcast their bias. By
using the term gadget - a dismissive term, you are doing simply that -
dismissing anyone else's rationale.

Nope. I'm pointing out that accusations of naivete cut both ways.

You know that a tread has gone on beyond usefulness when people start
claiming to "psychoanalyze" others motives for their position. Hitler
people, Hitler.

What about him?

In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...

"Larry W" wrote in message
...
I certainly agree that the Sawstop is an excellent safety feature. The
Whirlwind looks very good IMHO also. In my own purchases, for various
reasons I usually purchased used tools when it comes to larger items like
tablesaws, so I have to depend on good safety practices more than
technology.
But, the legal antics of the Sawstop designer don't sit right with me
either. Suppose Bell or Shoei and the other helmet manufacturers started
lobbying for mandatory helmet use but CAR AND TRUCK drivers. There's no
question it would reduce head injuries, right? Or why not require racing
type 5 point seatbelts? Somewhere a line is crossed. Though it is a
line that moves with the attititudes of society at any given time, like
the change in acceptance of smoking over the last 30 years or so.

--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

And boy you can't win for loosing. LOL

Taking the point of view, I don't want to be forced to buy this technology.
No problem. I don't want to pay for higher insurance rates to cover those
that don't want the technology. Catch 22.

Which is gonna cost you more, the Sawstop or the insurance rate? And
why would it increase due to lack of use of the technology, did table
saws suddenly become more likely to cause an injury because of it?

In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:50 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:27:33 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
Has someone dictated/mandated/legislated that you use saw stopping
blade technology?

IIRC, the inventor was lobbying for just such legislation.

Plus, he wanted so much in royalties and licensing that ALL of the
manufacturers told him to shove it up his ass. I believe it was after
that happened that he chose to force the issue, to pursue mandatory
use via lobbying. What a jerk.

Making things up Larry? Wher exactly did you read that the manufacturers
"told him to shove it up his ass". And peronally I thought the royalties
were perfectly in line. So your point of view is simply that. But
resorting to make up what actually went down to suit your own slant is
pretty rediculious. You are working yourself into a bigger lather the
more
you make things up.

What you thought of the royalties is meaningless, unless you're planning
on
building table saws. The table saw manufacturers *obviously* didn't agree
with you. The inventor *did* attempt to force the issue.


So that naturally means what Larry thought about the royalties is also
meaningless. I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any
reasonable offer. Really and truly why increase the expense of an item if
you don't have to. No one had to and still no one has to but if they want
to stay in business they may have to. Now that the SawStop is succeeding
on its own I doubt that obtaining the technology or license is going to be
as reasonable as it was when originally offered unless the Whirlwind or like
product can come up with an equal alternative solution.

But _is_ the Sawstop "succeeding on its own"? The company is not
publicly traded--for all we know they're burning through their venture
capital and will go under when it runs out.

That is the way insurance works. It is a socialistic plan that gambles the
history statistics.

When the people **with** the safety equipment get lower rates the people
without the available safety equipment get higher rates.

If people **with** the additional safety equipment decide they don't need
insurance anymore then the insurance company's history of, accidents per
policy, increase and the reates go up for everybody.



"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
Which is gonna cost you more, the Sawstop or the insurance rate? And
why would it increase due to lack of use of the technology, did table
saws suddenly become more likely to cause an injury because of it?

On 1/23/2011 4:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlep_6dnRl2ZcC3FaHQnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

You know that a tread has gone on beyond usefulness when people start
claiming to "psychoanalyze" others motives for their position. Hitler
people, Hitler.

What about him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/23/11 4:42 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/23/2011 4:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlep_6dnRl2ZcC3FaHQnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

You know that a tread has gone on beyond usefulness when people start
claiming to "psychoanalyze" others motives for their position. Hitler
people, Hitler.

What about him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


You know, the Nazis used wikipedia links to spread their propaganda,
Steve.


--

-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 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:26:26 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


"Larry W" wrote in message
...
I certainly agree that the Sawstop is an excellent safety feature. The
Whirlwind looks very good IMHO also. In my own purchases, for various
reasons I usually purchased used tools when it comes to larger items like
tablesaws, so I have to depend on good safety practices more than
technology.
But, the legal antics of the Sawstop designer don't sit right with me
either. Suppose Bell or Shoei and the other helmet manufacturers started
lobbying for mandatory helmet use but CAR AND TRUCK drivers. There's no
question it would reduce head injuries, right? Or why not require racing
type 5 point seatbelts? Somewhere a line is crossed. Though it is a
line that moves with the attititudes of society at any given time, like
the change in acceptance of smoking over the last 30 years or so.

--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

And boy you can't win for loosing. LOL

Taking the point of view, I don't want to be forced to buy this technology.
No problem. I don't want to pay for higher insurance rates to cover those
that don't want the technology. Catch 22.

Then don't. Buy cheaper insurance that doesn't cover such accidents.

wrote in message
I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any reasonable
offer.
Facts that are not in evidence.

History has shown those facts in evidence ~ especially on the North American
continent where greed and competition know no bounds.

That's the point. SawStop's inventor tried to make that happen. You
apparently think that's a good thing.

Maybe Leon is referring to a truly working safety device as being a good
thing and not as you prefer to believe Steve Gass trying to force the issue.
And even if Gass was trying to for the adoption of the Sawstop, it's a
working safety device. Whatever way gets it to market fastest is a good
thing as far as I'm concerned. It seems all you're concerned with is not
being coerced in any way to use the device despite its benefits.

I certainly wish them all the luck. I know I won't be buying one.

Of course you wouldn't buy one. You'd rebel against anything and everything
that forces you to be safe. You must go nuts having to wear a seat belt,
drive the speed limit and stop at red lights. You far to concerned with
yourself to realize that almost *every* safety mandate out there benefits
*everybody* when it prevents you from getting hurt.

On Jan 23, 5:21*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Which is gonna cost you more, the Sawstop or the insurance rate? *And
why would it increase due to lack of use of the technology, did table
saws suddenly become more likely to cause an injury because of it?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner, boys and girls, for the most
inane comment to date.

The SawStop saves your hand, the insurance pays you for losing it -
and those are equal choices in your mind. Hoo boy. Why do I bother?
Rhetorical question, so don't bother answering.

R

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any reasonable
offer.
Facts that are not in evidence.

History has shown those facts in evidence ~ especially on the North
American continent where greed and competition know no bounds.

That's the point. SawStop's inventor tried to make that happen. You
apparently think that's a good thing.

Maybe Leon is referring to a truly working safety device as being a good
thing and not as you prefer to believe Steve Gass trying to force the
issue. And even if Gass was trying to for the adoption of the Sawstop,
it's a working safety device. Whatever way gets it to market fastest is a
good thing as far as I'm concerned. It seems all you're concerned with is
not being coerced in any way to use the device despite its benefits.

I certainly wish them all the luck. I know I won't be buying one.

Of course you wouldn't buy one. You'd rebel against anything and
everything that forces you to be safe. You must go nuts having to wear a
seat belt, drive the speed limit and stop at red lights. You far to
concerned with yourself to realize that almost *every* safety mandate out
there benefits *everybody* when it prevents you from getting hurt.

Some people get a little insight into something that they know little about
and rebel. Then they pay out the nose for insurance not realizing that they
have cut their nose off to spite their face.

"Leon" wrote in message
Some people get a little insight into something that they know little
about and rebel. Then they pay out the nose for insurance not realizing
that they have cut their nose off to spite their face.

It's a natural act for anybody to rebel against something that attempts to
force them to comply. Most *every* argument I've seen against using the
Sawstop has at one point or another derided Steve Gass from trying to get
the Sawstop technology mandated. And, their hatred of that attempt has
caused them to dismiss the Sawstop as a device they will not use, despite
its safety benefits.

In other words, it's all right for them to be safe, just as long as it's
their idea and not someone else's.

"Upscale" wrote

It's a natural act for anybody to rebel against something that attempts to
force them to comply. Most *every* argument I've seen against using the
Sawstop has at one point or another derided Steve Gass from trying to get
the Sawstop technology mandated. And, their hatred of that attempt has
caused them to dismiss the Sawstop as a device they will not use, despite
its safety benefits.

From a pure marketing viewpoint, Mr. Gass was an idiot. He ****ed everybody
off.

You can argue the safety - human factor all you want. ****ed off people
don't respond well to objects of hatred.

As for safety, I always was a safety freak. I grew up around all kinds of
victims of industrial and logging accidents. It made a permanent impression
on me. A lot of guys I went to high school with are either dead or injured.
For the most part, those guys were NOT safety conscious.

In article ,
lid says...

On 1/23/2011 4:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlep_6dnRl2ZcC3FaHQnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

You know that a tread has gone on beyond usefulness when people start
claiming to "psychoanalyze" others motives for their position. Hitler
people, Hitler.

What about him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

What about it?

On Jan 23, 5:54*pm, -MIKE- wrote:

You know, the Nazis used wikipedia links to spread their propaganda,
Steve.

The surfing one were the worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surf_Nazis.jpg

R

"Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote in message
From a pure marketing viewpoint, Mr. Gass was an idiot. He ****ed
everybody off.

Well, I can't blame him as much as some do. He *did* first try to get his
device into the market through the other manufacturers who themselves
supposedly appeared to collude against his Sawstop. Personally, I don't
think the licensing fee he wanted was outlandish, there have been many
smaller and less technical devices that have come out on the market that
have commanded a greater licensing fee than what Gass wanted. Quite
possibly, the time, money and effort to patent, build and market a tablesaw
with his safety feature was just too much for him to face. Many, many people
including myself might balk at such an endevour. Gass certainly wouldn't be
the first person to try to take the shorter route. In this case, it turned
out to be the longer route.

And in the end, he was forced to face his demons and market the saw himself.
If even *one* of those manufacturers had taken on the licensing of the
Sawstop, they might well be at the top of the tablesaw marketing pyramid.

In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any reasonable
offer.
Facts that are not in evidence.

History has shown those facts in evidence ~ especially on the North
American continent where greed and competition know no bounds.

That's the point. SawStop's inventor tried to make that happen. You
apparently think that's a good thing.

Maybe Leon is referring to a truly working safety device as being a good
thing and not as you prefer to believe Steve Gass trying to force the
issue. And even if Gass was trying to for the adoption of the Sawstop,
it's a working safety device. Whatever way gets it to market fastest is a
good thing as far as I'm concerned. It seems all you're concerned with is
not being coerced in any way to use the device despite its benefits.

I certainly wish them all the luck. I know I won't be buying one.

Of course you wouldn't buy one. You'd rebel against anything and
everything that forces you to be safe. You must go nuts having to wear a
seat belt, drive the speed limit and stop at red lights. You far to
concerned with yourself to realize that almost *every* safety mandate out
there benefits *everybody* when it prevents you from getting hurt.

Some people get a little insight into something that they know little about
and rebel. Then they pay out the nose for insurance not realizing that they
have cut their nose off to spite their face.

So why did they not "pay through the nose for insurance" before the do-
gooders found out that they needed the latest gadget in order to be
"safe"?

You wanna cut insurance rates? Require that the plaintiff in a lawsuit
assumes the costs if the suit fails.

They appear to have hammered out an amazinly similar version over at
sawmillcreek.org starting a few years ago. Here is a link if anyone is
interested:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...age1&p=1359102

Bill

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:16:48 -0500, Bill wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

I certainly agree that the Sawstop is an excellent safety feature. The
Whirlwind looks very good IMHO also. In my own purchases, for various
reasons I usually purchased used tools when it comes to larger items like
tablesaws, so I have to depend on good safety practices more than technology.
But, the legal antics of the Sawstop designer don't sit right with me
either. Suppose Bell or Shoei and the other helmet manufacturers started
lobbying for mandatory helmet use but CAR AND TRUCK drivers. There's no
question it would reduce head injuries, right? Or why not require racing
type 5 point seatbelts?

That latter is a less obnoxious requirement than airbags IMO.

About a year and a half ago, a car turned in front of me, while the
driver was on a cell phone I think, despite my right of way--and I felt
the airbag knock me right in the jaw! I was happy about it too. She
said she didn't see anyone coming...

So, how loud are those things while you're in the car with one
ex-pand/ploding?

The lady who rammed me from behind (bright blue '90 Ford F-150 on the
freeway (I'd slowed for 35mph traffic near an onramp) said she didn't
see me or the FORTY CARS ahead of me, all with our brake lights on. My
dock bumper squashed her Toyota wagon an entire foot shorter. Luckily,
I had my rear slider open and my head had a chance to bounce off both
panes instead of just breaking through the single pane and breaking my
neck. I just got a nasty whiplash (6 weeks off with PT and chiro) out
of it. She had her seat belt on and didn't appear to be hurt.

Most accidents are people who aren't paying a whit of attention to
what they're doing behind the wheel. That said, most people can't
even steer a car, let alone _drive_ one. sigh

--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams

In article , "Leon" wrote:
[...]
"And *I* wouldn't buy one because when the time comes that my common sense,
agility, and attention to safety factors are so badly deteriorated that I
feel the need for the device I will discontinue using a table saw."

So how will you know when your common sense is gone?

Exactly so. Well said, Leon. You hit the nail on the head. When your common
sense is gone, how will you know -- how *can* you know -- when your common
sense is gone?

My wife and I have an example of that right in our own household. Her parents,
both in their late 80s, have been living with us for nearly two years now.
Unhappily, my MIL is in the middle stages of Alzheimer's disease (or some
similar progressive dementia), which makes it completely impossible for her to
drive a car safely -- and also prevents her from realizing that. She can't see
either (can't even make out the big E on the chart), and she also can't
understand why *that* should stop her from driving.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:50 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:27:33 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
Has someone dictated/mandated/legislated that you use saw stopping
blade technology?

IIRC, the inventor was lobbying for just such legislation.

Plus, he wanted so much in royalties and licensing that ALL of the
manufacturers told him to shove it up his ass. I believe it was after
that happened that he chose to force the issue, to pursue mandatory
use via lobbying. What a jerk.

Making things up Larry? Wher exactly did you read that the manufacturers
"told him to shove it up his ass".

That's my ad-libbed statement for "Each and every one of the
manufacturers decided against accepting any offers of buying licensing
or paying royalties to him." If you ask the reps for those companies,
I'd be willing to bet that they'd have thought those thoughts, whether
or not they actually told him off in those precise words.


And peronally I thought the royalties
were perfectly in line. So your point of view is simply that. But
resorting to make up what actually went down to suit your own slant is
pretty rediculious. You are working yourself into a bigger lather the more
you make things up.

Enhanced, sir. Nothing was made up.


If he thought it was so important to life and limb, why didn't he just
donate the idea to humanity, hmm? (HINT: greed and altruism are
mutually exclusive.)

Still buying gasoline and insurance from the greedy?

What part of "when at all possible" did you not understand, dude?

--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams

In article , Steve Turner wrote:

If the Whirlwind ever comes to market, who's to say it couldn't also be
installed on a SawStop? Breach the Whirlwind's safety zone and the saw begins
the less drastic one-second shutdown, without damage to the hardware; touch the
blade and BOOM. Best of both worlds.

Sounds like a winner to me.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:48:44 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

Making things up Larry? Wher exactly did you read that the manufacturers
"told him to shove it up his ass". And peronally I thought the royalties
were perfectly in line. So your point of view is simply that. But
resorting to make up what actually went down to suit your own slant is
pretty rediculious. You are working yourself into a bigger lather the
more
you make things up.

What you thought of the royalties is meaningless, unless you're planning
on
building table saws. The table saw manufacturers *obviously* didn't agree
with you. The inventor *did* attempt to force the issue.


So that naturally means what Larry thought about the royalties is also
meaningless. I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any
reasonable offer.

You suspect? So, it's OK for you to opine but it isn't for me? What's
with this double standard, guy? Or are you making this up?

--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:16:48 -0500, Bill wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

I certainly agree that the Sawstop is an excellent safety feature. The
Whirlwind looks very good IMHO also. In my own purchases, for various
reasons I usually purchased used tools when it comes to larger items
like
tablesaws, so I have to depend on good safety practices more than
technology.
But, the legal antics of the Sawstop designer don't sit right with me
either. Suppose Bell or Shoei and the other helmet manufacturers
started
lobbying for mandatory helmet use but CAR AND TRUCK drivers. There's no
question it would reduce head injuries, right? Or why not require
racing
type 5 point seatbelts?

That latter is a less obnoxious requirement than airbags IMO.

About a year and a half ago, a car turned in front of me, while the
driver was on a cell phone I think, despite my right of way--and I felt
the airbag knock me right in the jaw! I was happy about it too. She
said she didn't see anyone coming...

So, how loud are those things while you're in the car with one
ex-pand/ploding?

The lady who rammed me from behind (bright blue '90 Ford F-150 on the
freeway (I'd slowed for 35mph traffic near an onramp) said she didn't
see me or the FORTY CARS ahead of me, all with our brake lights on. My
dock bumper squashed her Toyota wagon an entire foot shorter. Luckily,
I had my rear slider open and my head had a chance to bounce off both
panes instead of just breaking through the single pane and breaking my
neck. I just got a nasty whiplash (6 weeks off with PT and chiro) out
of it. She had her seat belt on and didn't appear to be hurt.

Most accidents are people who aren't paying a whit of attention to
what they're doing behind the wheel. That said, most people can't
even steer a car, let alone _drive_ one. sigh

Years ago, they predicted that, by this century, we would all be whizzing
around in flying cars. I didn't believe it. Many can't deal with two axis.
No one in their right mind would think three was do able.

In article , "CW" wrote:

Years ago, they predicted that, by this century, we would all be whizzing
around in flying cars. I didn't believe it. Many can't deal with two axis.
No one in their right mind would think three was do able.

They predicted all kinds of stuff, didn't they? I want to know where the heck
is my personal jetpack. Where's my helicopter car? Where's my robot that does
all the housecleaning for me? Where are the pills I can take that give me all
my nutrition for the day without needing to cook?

Notice, too, how much of the things that *did* happen, they never predicted:
cell phones, personal computers, GPS...

Larry Jaques wrote:

That latter is a less obnoxious requirement than airbags IMO.

About a year and a half ago, a car turned in front of me, while the
driver was on a cell phone I think, despite my right of way--and I felt
the airbag knock me right in the jaw! I was happy about it too. She
said she didn't see anyone coming...

So, how loud are those things while you're in the car with one
ex-pand/ploding?

The sound was insignificant compared to the feeling of the (heavy)
metal-to-metal "jarring" which stayed with me for several days. I
honestly didn't understand what people meant when they said they felt
"jarred or shaken-up" by an accident before that. The airbag actually
came as a surprise to me, temporarily blocking my vision. I felt like I
got punched in the jaw. The chemical reaction created leaves a nasty
(oxident?) smell in the car which doesn't go away in a few days. I drove
home, but the car was totaled in part due to the high cost of rebuilding
the airbag system (which I was told has many sensors, etc.). Drive
safe--there are people not paying attention out there!

Bill

?
"J. Clarke" wrote

Which is gonna cost you more, the Sawstop or the insurance rate? And
why would it increase due to lack of use of the technology, did table
saws suddenly become more likely to cause an injury because of it?



Our Workman's Comp carrier is recommending using Saw Stop. I'd not be
surprised if they carried it further in the future and either demanded they
be used or raised the rates. It is a way they can limit their exposure to
claims.

When we had our annual inspection, our inspector told me about a cabinet
company that moved recently, and on his recommendation bough the Saw Stop
models as replacements for old equipment. In the first month one tripped and
avoided a serious injury. You can bet he's going to push for them all over.

"Larry Jaques" wrote

Leon" wrote:
Making things up Larry? Wher exactly did you read that the manufacturers
"told him to shove it up his ass".

That's my ad-libbed statement for "Each and every one of the
manufacturers decided against accepting any offers of buying licensing
or paying royalties to him." If you ask the reps for those companies,
I'd be willing to bet that they'd have thought those thoughts, whether
or not they actually told him off in those precise words.

Enhanced, sir. Nothing was made up.

A little hyperbole is sometimes acceptable in order to make a point. G

Max

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:27:49 -0500, "Upscale" wrote:


wrote in message
I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any reasonable
offer.
Facts that are not in evidence.

History has shown those facts in evidence ~ especially on the North American
continent where greed and competition know no bounds.

More leftist claptrap.

That's the point. SawStop's inventor tried to make that happen. You
apparently think that's a good thing.

Maybe Leon is referring to a truly working safety device as being a good
thing and not as you prefer to believe Steve Gass trying to force the issue.

Two completely different issues, though even a moron like you should know
that.

And even if Gass was trying to for the adoption of the Sawstop, it's a
working safety device.

There is no "if" about it. Whether it is a working safety device is
completely irrelevant to the argument, though even a moron like you should
know that.

Whatever way gets it to market fastest is a good
thing as far as I'm concerned.

Even if that destroys the market?

It seems all you're concerned with is not
being coerced in any way to use the device despite its benefits.

More lies, from a leftist loser.

I certainly wish them all the luck. I know I won't be buying one.

Of course you wouldn't buy one. You'd rebel against anything and everything
that forces you to be safe.

Another lie. I looked at them. I couldn't justify *TWICE* the price of my
Unisaw.

You must go nuts having to wear a seat belt,
drive the speed limit and stop at red lights. You far to concerned with
yourself to realize that almost *every* safety mandate out there benefits
*everybody* when it prevents you from getting hurt.

More garbage from life's loser.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
?
"J. Clarke" wrote

Saw an interesting statistic. Most fatal amputations occur in automobile
accidents.


Holy Crap! I'm taking the table saw out of the back seat.



ROFC

(Rolling On Floor Choking - I just knew teaching the cats the Heimlich
maneuver would pay off!)

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

Has someone dictated/mandated/legislated that you use saw stopping
blade technology?

IIRC, the inventor was lobbying for just such legislation.

No actually the inventor was lobbying for TS's to have the technology not
that you must buy a TS with that technology. You can choose to use other
than a TS. A much less expensive Festool track saw would be a very
reasonable alternative, all things being equal considering quality of cut.


Right ...

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

wrote in message
More leftist claptrap.

Two completely different issues, though even a moron like you should know
that.

There is no "if" about it. Whether it is a working safety device is
completely irrelevant to the argument, though even a moron like you should
know that.

More lies, from a leftist loser.

More garbage from life's loser.

Feel better now? You're a crybaby and you're going to have your whining
temper tantrum no matter what anybody says.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote in message
From a pure marketing viewpoint, Mr. Gass was an idiot. He ****ed
everybody off.

Well, I can't blame him as much as some do. He *did* first try to get his
device into the market through the other manufacturers who themselves
supposedly appeared to collude against his Sawstop. Personally, I don't
think the licensing fee he wanted was outlandish, there have been many
smaller and less technical devices that have come out on the market that
have commanded a greater licensing fee than what Gass wanted. Quite
possibly, the time, money and effort to patent, build and market a
tablesaw with his safety feature was just too much for him to face. Many,
many people including myself might balk at such an endevour. Gass
certainly wouldn't be the first person to try to take the shorter route.
In this case, it turned out to be the longer route.

And in the end, he was forced to face his demons and market the saw
himself. If even *one* of those manufacturers had taken on the licensing
of the Sawstop, they might well be at the top of the tablesaw marketing
pyramid.


Is Sawstop at the top of that pyramid?

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Bill" wrote in message
...
They appear to have hammered out an amazinly similar version over at
sawmillcreek.org starting a few years ago. Here is a link if anyone is
interested:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...age1&p=1359102

Bill


Wherein one poster who has never owned or used one thinks that its efficient
dust collection makes it more enjoyable. Odd that.

BTW, dust collection is Vastly more efficient on the Ryobi BT3000.

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:50 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:27:33 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
Has someone dictated/mandated/legislated that you use saw stopping
blade technology?

IIRC, the inventor was lobbying for just such legislation.

Plus, he wanted so much in royalties and licensing that ALL of the
manufacturers told him to shove it up his ass. I believe it was
after
that happened that he chose to force the issue, to pursue mandatory
use via lobbying. What a jerk.

Making things up Larry? Wher exactly did you read that the
manufacturers
"told him to shove it up his ass". And peronally I thought the
royalties
were perfectly in line. So your point of view is simply that. But
resorting to make up what actually went down to suit your own slant is
pretty rediculious. You are working yourself into a bigger lather the
more
you make things up.

What you thought of the royalties is meaningless, unless you're
planning
on
building table saws. The table saw manufacturers *obviously* didn't
agree
with you. The inventor *did* attempt to force the issue.


So that naturally means what Larry thought about the royalties is also
meaningless. I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any
reasonable offer. Really and truly why increase the expense of an item
if
you don't have to. No one had to and still no one has to but if they
want
to stay in business they may have to. Now that the SawStop is
succeeding
on its own I doubt that obtaining the technology or license is going to
be
as reasonable as it was when originally offered unless the Whirlwind or
like
product can come up with an equal alternative solution.

But _is_ the Sawstop "succeeding on its own"? The company is not
publicly traded--for all we know they're burning through their venture
capital and will go under when it runs out.



Then folks will own an orphan. I've owned an orphan before. Not a happy
happenstance.

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:48:44 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

Making things up Larry? Wher exactly did you read that the
manufacturers
"told him to shove it up his ass". And peronally I thought the
royalties
were perfectly in line. So your point of view is simply that. But
resorting to make up what actually went down to suit your own slant is
pretty rediculious. You are working yourself into a bigger lather the
more
you make things up.

What you thought of the royalties is meaningless, unless you're planning
on
building table saws. The table saw manufacturers *obviously* didn't
agree
with you. The inventor *did* attempt to force the issue.


So that naturally means what Larry thought about the royalties is also
meaningless. I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any
reasonable offer.

You suspect? So, it's OK for you to opine but it isn't for me? What's
with this double standard, guy? Or are you making this up?



Chaps have been at the Vitriol today!

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
Is Sawstop at the top of that pyramid?

I was referring to an already established table saw company who suddenly
licensed a safety device that no one else had. But, you knew that and
decided to try manipulate what I said into something else.

And, considering the active discussions about Sawstop, I'd suggest to you
that without equivalent table saw safety devices appearing in the meantime,
Sawstop will be at the top of the home based woodworker market within a
short ten years.