On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques
said:

Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.

And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
properly to the injury in the first place.

Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?

On 2011-01-24 10:41:18 -0500, RicodJour said:

I see. Pros are more careful so they don't need guards, and pros are
the only ones that spend enough time cutting that it is cost effective
(again, skew word at work) for them to make guards, hence no one needs
guards. Yep. Ironclad reasoning, fer sure.

R

And never match wits in battle against a Sicilian?

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:44:21 -0500, Steve
wrote:

On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques
said:

Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.

And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
properly to the injury in the first place.

Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?

You're right. I was considering only the semi-intelligent people.
There are far too many otherwise out there for it to be profitable.
But every little bit helps when you're $13T in debt and have massive
deficits adding to it each year...

--
If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying?
If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying?
-- Shantideva

On 01/25/2011 10:04 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:44:21 -0500, Steve
wrote:

On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques
said:

Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.

And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
properly to the injury in the first place.

Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?

You're right. I was considering only the semi-intelligent people.
There are far too many otherwise out there for it to be profitable.
But every little bit helps when you're $13T in debt and have massive
deficits adding to it each year...

--
If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying?
If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying?
-- Shantideva

You're a trillion too late:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:19:44 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 01/25/2011 10:04 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:44:21 -0500, Steve
wrote:

On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques
said:

Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.

And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
properly to the injury in the first place.

Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?

You're right. I was considering only the semi-intelligent people.
There are far too many otherwise out there for it to be profitable.
But every little bit helps when you're $13T in debt and have massive
deficits adding to it each year...


You're a trillion too late:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Holy Fing S, Batman! Did anyone catch the Fake of the Union last
night? What wasn't rhetoric was sucking up. 90/10?

--
If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying?
If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying?
-- Shantideva

On 1/23/2011 4:05 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:

Here is a quote from a lawyer who takes saw injury cases.

"Every 9 minutes a person in the United States is injured using a
table saw. Ten people everyday suffer amputations. "

And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
"A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
averaging 31,500 injuries per year."

Anytime I see stats quoted by anyone, I wonder how they arrived at the
number? Who did the counting? What was their objective. Saw Stop
people count differently than Delta people, for example.

In any case, 31,500/year = .5 Every 9 minutes, not 1 every 9 minutes,
making someone off by what, just 50%? Just saying...

--
Jack
4 million people die from second hand smoke every day....
http://jbstein.com

On Jan 26, 10:34*am, Jack Stein wrote:

Anytime I see stats quoted by anyone, I wonder how they arrived at the
number? *Who did the counting? *What was their objective. *Saw Stop
people count differently than Delta people, for example.

In any case, 31,500/year = .5 Every 9 minutes, not 1 every 9 minutes,
making someone off by what, just 50%? * *Just saying...

Not arguing with you, but if you're talking about accident rates I
would imagine that most of the accidents occur when people are awake,
right? So the 'day' is not 24 hours.

R

On Jan 26, 12:04*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:44:21 -0500, Steve wrote:
On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques said:

Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
bandage would do the trick. *That alone drives up insurance rates.

And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
properly to the injury in the first place.

Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?

You're right. I was considering only the semi-intelligent people.

Everybody is semi-intelligent.

R

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:35 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
wrote:

On Jan 23, 5:36*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:36:00 -0800, "DGDevin"



wrote:

"Swingman" *wrote in message
m...

Take such statistics with a grain of salt. Operative word is "related".

Injuries are routinely classified as "table saw related" even when
involving a table saw without a blade attached and/or not plugged in.

How many? *50%? *5%? *Makes a big difference, just saying some accidents
didn't involve a spinning blade doesn't give us useful information, it's
like telling someone to wade across a river with an average depth of only
two feet.

His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made. The fact
is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
use it as a teen+alcohol=BAD things accident.

That is one reason why I'd like to see MADD just go the hell away

That's curious. And by curious I mean stupid and myopic.

You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? When I'm in
the 'nervous seat', as my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
as much attention as the driver.

R

I said a passenger IN THE OTHER CAR...how does a drunk passenger have
ANYTHING to do with the fact that the other driver is a teenager?

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:02:37 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



wrote in message ...


His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made.

Without knowing how much of an adjustment it's kind of pointless, what if
it's .05%?

And that is exactly WHY the "data" can be misleading...they give no
room for margin of error, nor do they even acknowledge that there IS a
margin for error...They use anecdotal "evidence" as proof, so long as
it fits what they are trying to prove.

As the old saying goes, figures don't lie...but liars can figure

On Jan 26, 7:11*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:35 -0800 (PST), RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 23, 5:36*pm, wrote:

His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made. The fact
is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
use it as a teen+alcohol=BAD things accident.

That is one reason why I'd like to see MADD just go the hell away

That's curious. *And by curious I mean stupid and myopic.

You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? *When I'm in
the 'nervous seat', as *my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
as much attention as the driver.


I said a passenger IN THE OTHER CAR...how does a drunk passenger have
ANYTHING to do with the fact that the other driver is a teenager?

Two cars ARE involved in the accident. Only one OF them needs TO get
out of the WAY to avoid the two car collision that you are referring
to - with ME so FAR...?

If THE driver in either car is distracted, the odds of avoiding the
ACCIDENT, for both cars, GOES down. Still WITH me?

A drunk teenager in a CAR is a major distraction. I THINK you can
handle it FROM there. THANKS.

R

The worst "kick back" (really the reverse) I've had was with my RAS. I
was
sawing into a 1" cedar board when it grabbed the blade and the carriage
came
at me. I had a few kicks when I was ripping with it, too. More than one
board hit the wall. I've had no kicks on my table saw, yet.

I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip with it,
either.

In my opinion, there is not enough control of the stock while doing this,
and far too many "bad things" can happen. It can pull your hand into the
blade, or shoot the stock at you. I shudder when thinking about it.

Not trying to stir up too much crap, but as someone that uses a RAS to
rip sheet stock on a fairly regular basis, I'm curious as to how you
can have your hand pulled into the blade when ripping.

As I see it, on a TS, you are pushing a piece of wood into the
spinning blade while using a fence to guide the stock and the blade
sticks UP thru the material...on a RAS, you push the stock into the
spinning blade, using a fence, and the blade is above the stock. With
these set-ups, the TS pulls the material down to the table and the RAS
pulls the stock up to the blade guard...so the same effect, really.

Mike

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:39:01 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
wrote:

On Jan 26, 7:11*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:35 -0800 (PST), RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 23, 5:36*pm, wrote:

His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made. The fact
is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
use it as a teen+alcohol=BAD things accident.

That is one reason why I'd like to see MADD just go the hell away

That's curious. *And by curious I mean stupid and myopic.

You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? *When I'm in
the 'nervous seat', as *my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
as much attention as the driver.


I said a passenger IN THE OTHER CAR...how does a drunk passenger have
ANYTHING to do with the fact that the other driver is a teenager?

Two cars ARE involved in the accident. Only one OF them needs TO get
out of the WAY to avoid the two car collision that you are referring
to - with ME so FAR...?

If THE driver in either car is distracted, the odds of avoiding the
ACCIDENT, for both cars, GOES down. Still WITH me?

A drunk teenager in a CAR is a major distraction. I THINK you can
handle it FROM there. THANKS.

R

Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?

That arguement is the same as saying that ALL blondes are dumb or that
all Italians are in the mob.

My point from the beginning is that MADD uses an accident like what I
just described to bolster their arguement that ALL uses of alcohol is
BADBADBAD.

If you can't or won't accept that sometimes crap happens, then you
live in a happier world than the one that I live in..

On Jan 26, 10:20*pm, wrote:

Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?

You said it was a teen drunk in the other car. I'm not sure if you're
purposefully being obtuse or what. I understand your point, but you
don't apparently understand mine.

Having some drunk in the car, regardless of age, increases the risk of
an accident for the people in that car, whether the drunk is driving
or not. You can play semantic games and get your knickers in a twist
about MADD, but I don't really see the problem.

That arguement is the same as saying that ALL blondes are dumb or that
all Italians are in the mob.

They are, and they are. Oh, excuse me - let me put that in words
you'll understand.
They ARE, and THEY are.

My point from the beginning is that MADD uses an accident like what I
just described to bolster their arguement that ALL uses of alcohol is
BADBADBAD.

Well, holy **** and stop the presses - somebody has an agenda?!

If you can't or won't accept that sometimes crap happens, then you
live in a happier world than the one that I live in..

Getting upset about someone having an agenda, and then throwing out
even the good stuff that they might try to do is just silly. Buck up.

R

--


Liberalism is a mental disorder
wrote in message
...

The worst "kick back" (really the reverse) I've had was with my RAS. I
was
sawing into a 1" cedar board when it grabbed the blade and the carriage
came
at me. I had a few kicks when I was ripping with it, too. More than
one
board hit the wall. I've had no kicks on my table saw, yet.

I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip with it,
either.

In my opinion, there is not enough control of the stock while doing this,
and far too many "bad things" can happen. It can pull your hand into the
blade, or shoot the stock at you. I shudder when thinking about it.

Not trying to stir up too much crap, but as someone that uses a RAS to
rip sheet stock on a fairly regular basis, I'm curious as to how you
can have your hand pulled into the blade when ripping.

As I see it, on a TS, you are pushing a piece of wood into the
spinning blade while using a fence to guide the stock and the blade
sticks UP thru the material...on a RAS, you push the stock into the
spinning blade, using a fence, and the blade is above the stock. With
these set-ups, the TS pulls the material down to the table and the RAS
pulls the stock up to the blade guard...so the same effect, really.

I used to rip on a radial arm saw frequently. Could never understand what
was supposedly so dangerous about it. Has blade guard, splitter and anti
kick palls. You're right, no real difference. The blades are just orientated
180 out from each other.

On 1/26/11 9:08 PM, wrote:

The worst "kick back" (really the reverse) I've had was with my RAS. I
was
sawing into a 1" cedar board when it grabbed the blade and the carriage
came
at me. I had a few kicks when I was ripping with it, too. More than one
board hit the wall. I've had no kicks on my table saw, yet.

I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip with it,
either.

In my opinion, there is not enough control of the stock while doing this,
and far too many "bad things" can happen. It can pull your hand into the
blade, or shoot the stock at you. I shudder when thinking about it.

Not trying to stir up too much crap, but as someone that uses a RAS to
rip sheet stock on a fairly regular basis, I'm curious as to how you
can have your hand pulled into the blade when ripping.

As I see it, on a TS, you are pushing a piece of wood into the
spinning blade while using a fence to guide the stock and the blade
sticks UP thru the material...on a RAS, you push the stock into the
spinning blade, using a fence, and the blade is above the stock. With
these set-ups, the TS pulls the material down to the table and the RAS
pulls the stock up to the blade guard...so the same effect, really.

Mike

I'm guessing he's feeding the stock the wrong way. :-)


--

-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 1/26/2011 9:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

In their program, the RAS has ONLY ONE function.

The first step in preparing stock.

IOW, cutting rough stock to approximate length.

Just starting that beast got my extra special attention.

My sentiments exactly ... "beast" is a good description. Used a borrowed
RAS to build a couple of recording studios way back when, and it was the
only tool that I've ever used that I instinctively hated to walk up to.

I had no preconditioning for that feeling whatsoever, there was just
something about a RAS that literally exuded danger to me ... still would
if I had one.

To me, always been a tool of last resort if I couldn't use something
else. Irrational? So be it ... it even surprised me when I thought about
it ... go figure.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article , RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:20=A0pm, wrote:

Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?

You said it was a teen drunk in the other car.

No, he didn't. Go back and read it again.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote

SFWIW, the local community college has some rather firm opinions about the
RAS.

In their program, the RAS has ONLY ONE function.

The first step in preparing stock.

IOW, cutting rough stock to approximate length.

Just starting that beast got my extra special attention.

Lew

A year or so ago I bought a Milwaukee sliding compound miter saw.
I bought a Freud blade to go with it. (the Milwaukee blade sucked)
No matter how many different ways I tried to cut with it, I got splinters,
not bad but still.........
I went back to my old Craftsman RAS with Freud blade.
Now the Milwaukee collects dust.
I would never try to rip with an RAS but it sure cuts a fine crosscut.

Max

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:30:43 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
wrote:

On Jan 26, 10:20*pm, wrote:

Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?

You said it was a teen drunk in the other car. I'm not sure if you're
purposefully being obtuse or what. I understand your point, but you
don't apparently understand mine.

I NEVER said that the teen was drunk....I said, from the beginning
that it was the PASSENGER in the other car. If the driver of the other
car can't maintain control because he or she has a passenger, then
that person should NEVER drive

Having some drunk in the car, regardless of age, increases the risk of
an accident for the people in that car, whether the drunk is driving
or not. You can play semantic games and get your knickers in a twist
about MADD, but I don't really see the problem.

I'll stipulate that point, but not so far as to pin ANY blame on the
accident to the teen

That arguement is the same as saying that ALL blondes are dumb or that
all Italians are in the mob.

They are, and they are. Oh, excuse me - let me put that in words
you'll understand.
They ARE, and THEY are.

My point from the beginning is that MADD uses an accident like what I
just described to bolster their arguement that ALL uses of alcohol is
BADBADBAD.

Well, holy **** and stop the presses - somebody has an agenda?!

I don't mind an agenda....we all have one...but I don't expect the
taxpayers of this country to pay for mine


If you can't or won't accept that sometimes crap happens, then you
live in a happier world than the one that I live in..

Getting upset about someone having an agenda, and then throwing out
even the good stuff that they might try to do is just silly. Buck up.

R

Tell me this....exactly WHAT good has that group done?

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:30:43 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
wrote:

On Jan 26, 10:20*pm, wrote:

Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?

You said it was a teen drunk in the other car. I'm not sure if you're
purposefully being obtuse or what. I understand your point, but you
don't apparently understand mine.

I NEVER said that the teen was drunk....I said, from the beginning
that it was the PASSENGER in the other car. If the driver of the other
car can't maintain control because he or she has a passenger, then
that person should NEVER drive

Having some drunk in the car, regardless of age, increases the risk of
an accident for the people in that car, whether the drunk is driving
or not. You can play semantic games and get your knickers in a twist
about MADD, but I don't really see the problem.

I'll stipulate that point, but not so far as to pin ANY blame on the
accident to the teen

I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
risk of an accident.

That arguement is the same as saying that ALL blondes are dumb or that
all Italians are in the mob.

They are, and they are. Oh, excuse me - let me put that in words
you'll understand.
They ARE, and THEY are.

My point from the beginning is that MADD uses an accident like what I
just described to bolster their arguement that ALL uses of alcohol is
BADBADBAD.

Well, holy **** and stop the presses - somebody has an agenda?!

I don't mind an agenda....we all have one...but I don't expect the
taxpayers of this country to pay for mine


If you can't or won't accept that sometimes crap happens, then you
live in a happier world than the one that I live in..

Getting upset about someone having an agenda, and then throwing out
even the good stuff that they might try to do is just silly. Buck up.

R

Tell me this....exactly WHAT good has that group done?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
risk of an accident.

Maybe the "drunk" was a good looking blonde and the driver kept looking in
the back seat?

In article ocal, "J. Clarke" wrote:

I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
risk of an accident.

I think the point was that (according to mdavenport, anyway) MADD counts as a
teen-alcohol-related accident even cases in which there was a drunk passenger
in the car *not* driven by the teen.

On 1/28/11 10:54 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
In omain.local, "J. wrote:

I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
risk of an accident.

I think the point was that (according to mdavenport, anyway) MADD counts as a
teen-alcohol-related accident even cases in which there was a drunk passenger
in the car *not* driven by the teen.

Which is incredibly stupid, as they were obviously doing the right thing.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:54:20 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ocal, "J. Clarke" wrote:

I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
risk of an accident.

I think the point was that (according to mdavenport, anyway) MADD counts as a
teen-alcohol-related accident even cases in which there was a drunk passenger
in the car *not* driven by the teen.

THANK YOU!!!!!

That is exactly what I was referring to

On Jan 28, 10:54*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ocal, "J. Clarke" wrote:

I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
risk of an accident.

I do believe you're the first person mentioning the drunk is passed
out.

I think the point was that (according to mdavenport, anyway) MADD counts as a
teen-alcohol-related accident even cases in which there was a drunk passenger
in the car *not* driven by the teen.

I, for one, am shocked, shocked I tell you!, that someone would figure
their statistics differently than someone else. I've never heard of
such a thing and think it's probably an urban myth.

R