In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 10/14/2011 8:51 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, wrote:
Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.

It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you
actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go
through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees
you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe
it or not.

Wink!

Insurance pays for all that, and my insurance company doesn't even want
to know if I have a saw let alone whether it's a Sawstop.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:31:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"


Insurance pays for all that, and my insurance company doesn't even want
to know if I have a saw let alone whether it's a Sawstop.



That will change in the future for Workman's Comp insurance. Our
carrier is very interested in Saw Stop and is recommending their
clients change to them. .

SURPRISE!!!

You didn't disclose you were using a dangerous piece of equipment listed in
our secret document found in bluhblahbalh.
Full disclosure is the responsibility of the insured and therefo

Your claim is null and void.


---------------
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
n.local...

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 10/14/2011 8:51 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, wrote:
Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.

It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you
actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go
through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees
you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe
it or not.

Wink!

Insurance pays for all that, and my insurance company doesn't even want
to know if I have a saw let alone whether it's a Sawstop.

On 10/14/2011 6:06 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just wrote:

On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in :

You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
hack making decisions for me.

You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
should
be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...


You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
what you wanted, do you?

And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?

You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time.

You miss my point. If I voted for someone who didn't get elected, the
statement that I decided through my voting what should be done is a
false statement.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:51:37 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 10/14/2011 6:06 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just wrote:

On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in :

You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
hack making decisions for me.

You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
should
be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...


You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
what you wanted, do you?

And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?

You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time.

You miss my point. If I voted for someone who didn't get elected, the
statement that I decided through my voting what should be done is a
false statement.

No, I missed nothing. Because the person you voted for lost does not mean
that you weren't part of the decision process. Your logic is faulty. However,
if you're always on the losing side, you're a kook.

On 10/15/2011 12:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:51:37 -0600, Just wrote:

On 10/14/2011 6:06 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just wrote:

On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in :

You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
hack making decisions for me.

You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
should
be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...


You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
what you wanted, do you?

And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?

You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time.

You miss my point. If I voted for someone who didn't get elected, the
statement that I decided through my voting what should be done is a
false statement.

No, I missed nothing. Because the person you voted for lost does not mean
that you weren't part of the decision process. Your logic is faulty. However,
if you're always on the losing side, you're a kook.

But your comment wasn't that I was "part of the decision process." You
said that I decided through my voting what should be done. The former
statement may be true, the latter statement clearly is not.

" writes:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:51:37 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 10/14/2011 6:06 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just wrote:

On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in :

You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
hack making decisions for me.

You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
should
be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...


You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
what you wanted, do you?

And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?

You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time.

You miss my point. If I voted for someone who didn't get elected, the
statement that I decided through my voting what should be done is a
false statement.

No, I missed nothing. Because the person you voted for lost does not mean
that you weren't part of the decision process. Your logic is faulty. However,
if you're always on the losing side, you're a kook.


You are both kooks. This is a representational democracy. Your non-presidential
vote allows you and your neighbors to select another neighbor to represent your
neighborhood (district). This works on every level from local municipal, through
county, state and federal elected offices. The presidency is an exception, but
aside from declaring war (a controversial topic itself), the president has little
direct power - he cannot pass laws, only suggest them[*].

Since no neighborhood consists of people who think things should be done the
exact same way, the elected representitive is (but they don't) required to
consider _all_ his or her constituents when representing them before the
body politic. Too often, however, elected representatives (particularly
republicans[**], lately), believe that they represent the _party_, not their
neighborhood, leading to the kind of corrosive politics that we are currently
experiencing.

The stones said it best. "You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need".

scott
[*] Contrary to popular political rhetoric, executive orders are very limited
in scope and applicability, and may only apply to areas of responsibility
delegated to the executive branch by congress (who can always revoke the
delegation - checks and balances, dontchanknow).

[**] Quoting McConnell: "My goal for the next three years it to make sure that
the president isn't elected to a second term". This was televised. What
happened to the half of Kentucky that the Senator is supposed to be
representing? Over half his fellow citizens voted for the President.
Suck it up Senator and do your damn job. ****ing politicians.

On 10/15/2011 2:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

clipped
The presidency is an exception, but
aside from declaring war (a controversial topic itself), the president has little
direct power - he cannot pass laws, only suggest them[*].

1. The President cannot declare war. The Constitution grants that
power to Congress. As commander in chief, the President can order troop
movements. But he can't simply go out and order the military to commit
acts of war without Congressional support.
2. You are correct that the President can only suggest laws, not pass
them. However:
3. His veto power means that, unless a bill's proponents can muster 2/3
of Congress to support the bill, they have to pay more attention to what
the President wants than they have to pay to you or me, who also have
the power to suggest laws.
4. A great deal of business at the federal level is done by
administrative agencies. Most of them fall within the executive branch
of government, which means that at the operational level they report to
and therefore take their orders from the President, not Congress. As
long as what the President orders does not violate federal law, he has
the authority to control those agencies.

Josepi wrote:
SURPRISE!!!

You didn't disclose you were using a dangerous piece of equipment
listed in our secret document found in bluhblahbalh.
Full disclosure is the responsibility of the insured and therefo

Your claim is null and void.


Spoken like the fully uninformed asshole that you are. Keep it up...

--

-Mike-

Just Wondering writes:
On 10/15/2011 2:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

clipped
The presidency is an exception, but
aside from declaring war (a controversial topic itself), the president has little
direct power - he cannot pass laws, only suggest them[*].

1. The President cannot declare war. The Constitution grants that
power to Congress. As commander in chief, the President can order troop
movements. But he can't simply go out and order the military to commit
acts of war without Congressional support.

I should have said "aside from making war". The war powers act has
never been settled.

Institutional inertia rules in Washington, and is for the most part
independent of the party in control. Endless faceless bureaucrats.

scott

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:31:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"


Insurance pays for all that, and my insurance company doesn't even want
to know if I have a saw let alone whether it's a Sawstop.



That will change in the future for Workman's Comp insurance. Our
carrier is very interested in Saw Stop and is recommending their
clients change to them. .

I don't get workmen's comp. If I am injured my medical insurance that I
pay for out of my own pocket pays for it. They had a long questionnaire
about my habits and activities. There was nothing on it about power
tools of any kind.

On 10/14/2011 9:51 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, wrote:
Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.

It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you
actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go
through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees
you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe
it or not.

So, you think motorcycles should be banned, and everyone riding in a car
should be forced to wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet, and so on and
so forth?

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 16, 1:09*pm, Jack wrote:
On 10/14/2011 10:46 AM, RicodJour wrote:

But that's not even an *issue since you're not in the market for a new saw
and probably won't
be for, what, ten or fifteen years? *Saws last a long time - at least
good ones do. *If your old one dies, buy a new motor.

My saw was built around 1954, I've been using it since 1970, and it has
not injured me yet, and it has no safety equipment on it... none. *I
expect it will last me the rest of my woodworking life, and yes, as I
age, I might be at higher risk, and probably should get one of his saws,
but so far, no.

Waiting until after the accident to put on your seatbelt makes
_perfect_ sense. I'm sure your reflexes and eyesight are improving
with age. Me? I'm not so lucky.

The only reason you'd have to have a new saw is for the new features.
Like safety features...unless they've figured out a new way to spin a
blade.

True enough, and I have looked at saw stop and perhaps would buy one if
I were in the market. *I just don't want him, and the government to
force me to buy one because they DEEM it necessary. *In fact, now that I
know what he is up too, and he's a freaking lawyer to boot, I'll likely
continue letting it all hang out with my current saw.

You were never entertaining any other option.

You're the one complaining that the government needs to change the rules
to force you to do something I guess your too ****ing dumb to do on your
own. *I'm happy with my current ability to buy what saw I want, and live
on the edge IF I so choose.

And you're already doing that and have no intention to change. So
where's the rub?

You will not be forced to buy a safer saw, and you won't be hurt
unless ...ummm, you're hurt. Time and age are taking care of reducing
your options just fine on their own. If you want to help kick the
ball downhill, that's fine by me.

We're all getting older. The world leaves us behind. That's how it
works and how it's _supposed_ to work. Getting worked up about it
doesn't slow it down.

R

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:31:14 -0400, Jack wrote:
Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.

So, you think motorcycles should be banned, and everyone riding in a car
should be forced to wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet, and so on and
so forth?

Don't put words in my mouth. No, I think if you're going to make
assinine statements like "I don't want protected from myself", then
you'd better be prepared to assume all financial responsibility. Since
that's an impossibility, as usual, what you have to say counts for
****.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:09:57 -0400, Jack wrote:
I'm happy with my current ability to buy what saw I want, and live
on the edge IF I so choose.

All that shows is that you're too stupid to realize and/or too
arrogant to admit that society usually ends up paying if you screw up.

On Oct 17, 2:04 am, Dave wrote:

All that shows is that you're too stupid to realize and/or too
arrogant to admit that society usually ends up paying if you screw up.

I think that could probably be extrapolated to life in general, and
expanded slightly to become a life code.

It's that no man is an island thing. The thinking runs in a circle,
which indicates completeness, and allows for the unanswerable.

In the beginning everybody needs people (wipe their butt, open doors,
get them to school, pay their bills), as they grow and their
'independence' grows they become less reliant on other people for the
basic things. Continued growth and continued thought leads to more
capabilities and this is where the road divides.

Some people think that increasing capabilities and reduced reliance
will continue until they can do everything, know everything and
theoretically this will culminate in having little to no need for
other people. These other people are for the most part viewed as
being in their way.

People that took the other road still increase their capabilities but
realize that there will always be people that can do more than they
can, know more than they do (if not individually on a particular
subject, certainly collectively on all subjects), and that these other
people can help or hinder them. Anybody can help or hinder them.

At the end everybody needs people (wipe their butt, open doors, get
them to the doctors, pay their bills). And we're right back where we
started.

I guess that choice of viewpoint will indicate whether people feel
they are part of society or society is in their way.

R

I thought that young people had more problems than old people, and I
hoped I could last until I was older so I wouldn't have all those
problems. Then I looked around and saw that everybody who looked young
had young problems and that everybody who looked old had old problems.
The "old" problems to me looked easier to take than the "young"
problems. So I decided to go gray so nobody would know now old I was
and I would look younger to them than how old they thought I was. I
would gain a lot by going gray: (1) I would have old problems, which
were easier to take than young problems, (2) everyone would be
impressed by how young I looked, and (3) I would be relieved of the
responsibility of acting young—I could occasionally lapse into
eccentricity or senility and no one would think anything of it because
of my gray hair. When you've got gray hair, every move you make seems
"young" and "spry," instead of just being normally active. It's like
you're getting a new talent. So I dyed my hair gray when I was about
twenty-three or twenty-four.
- Andy Warhol

On 10/17/2011 1:56 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:31:14 -0400, wrote:
Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.

So, you think motorcycles should be banned, and everyone riding in a car
should be forced to wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet, and so on and
so forth?

Don't put words in my mouth.

OK, let me put YOUR words back in:

"It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort."

So my question is, do you think motorcycles should be banned, NASCAR
approved Crash helmet required and so on and so forth? What if one
wishes to climb a mountain, or go snow skiing, water skiing, and a
million other things people choose to do that puts them at greater risk,
"costs the rest of society time, money and effort".

No, I think if you're going to make
assinine statements like "I don't want protected from myself", then
you'd better be prepared to assume all financial responsibility. Since
that's an impossibility, as usual, what you have to say counts for
****.

Same goes for you if you want to ride a motorcycle or refuse to wear a
NASCAR approved crash helmet in a car.

Of course, you are too freaking stupid to see the point.

I have to ask myself, why am I debating with an idiot?

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:48:08 -0400, Jack wrote:

"It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort."

You're competely missing the point. *EVERYTHING* in life has risk
attached to it, I don't argue that fact and you can't get around it.
It's the fact that you so blatently demand the right to hurt yourself
while at the same time completely dismiss the cost to society that's
the problem.

Many, many devices such as seat belts, helmets, even work boots have
saved society incalculable amounts of money. You *refuse* to take into
consideration that your right to hurt yourself also has a profound
cost and effect to society.

Yup, you have every right to hurt yourself as you will. You just
happen to be an asshole for insisting on it.

On 10/18/2011 1:26 AM, Dave wrote:
Jack wrote:

"It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort."

This is your stupid ass quote, are you really so dumb you quote yourself
then argue with me about it?

You're competely missing the point. *EVERYTHING* in life has risk
attached to it, I don't argue that fact and you can't get around it.

I'm not trying to get around it, in fact, that's pretty much my point.

It's the fact that you so blatently demand the right to hurt yourself
while at the same time completely dismiss the cost to society that's
the problem.

You also dismiss those very costs to society if you don't wear NASCAR
approved crash helmet when riding in a car, or dismiss the cost to
society resulting from needlessly riding around on motorcycles, or
climbing mountains, skydiving and a million other risky needless
activities. When I was dumb enough to ride a murdercycle, dismissing
the risk to myself, and the cost to society, I was glad government
didn't stop me. When I decided the risk was too high, I quit.
Government was not involved, just how I like it.

Many, many devices such as seat belts, helmets, even work boots have
saved society incalculable amounts of money.

So, you do wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet when in a car, and refuse
to ride a motorcycle because of the needless risks to society?

You *refuse* to take into
consideration that your right to hurt yourself also has a profound
cost and effect to society.

Nope, I think society is willing to take those risks, considering I'm
not required to wear a crash helmet in a car, can go snow skiing for
kicks, can go rock climbing on a whim, ride a bike for laughs, and even
use my table saw w/o a saw stop contraption attached to it, just like my
father did for 25 years, my brother and I have for 50 years each, all
w/o a single injury, or cost to anyone.

Yup, you have every right to hurt yourself as you will. You just
happen to be an asshole for insisting on it.

I may be an asshole, but at least I don't quote myself then argue with
what I said...

--
Jack
Got Change: Individual Freedom ======= Government Control!
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 18, 12:50*pm, Jack wrote:

I may be an asshole, but at least I don't quote myself then argue with
what I said...

What?! Do I detect a glimmer of enlightenment...? ~

R

On 9/28/2011 11:17 PM, Mike Paulsen wrote:
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

A rebuttal to Mr Gass by the PTI issued today 10/18 ... if you're going
to argue either way, you still need to read it:


http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/i...ble-saw-safety

Interesting section, copied he

Stephen Gass, a patent attorney, has filed more than 120 U.S. patent
applications, and has over 70 issued U.S. patents which pertain to the
SawStop technology.

quote

Stephen Gass told the U.S. government that it should assume that no
manufacturer will be able to introduce injury mitigation technology that
does not infringe on his patents.

After the PTI-JV technology became known, SawStop amended one of their
then-pending patent applications to purportedly cover any table saw that
retracts the blade rapidly within 14 milliseconds – using any retraction
technique after detecting contact. This patent application which was
subsequently allowed by the U.S. Patent Office, is arguably not limited
to SawStop's blade brake technology for retracting the blade, but rather
is designed to cover any retraction technique, hindering the development
of alternative blade retraction technologies and blocking competing
inventors from using their own inventions.

/quote

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:34:04 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 9/28/2011 11:17 PM, Mike Paulsen wrote:
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

A rebuttal to Mr Gass by the PTI issued today 10/18 ... if you're going
to argue either way, you still need to read it:


http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/i...ble-saw-safety

Interesting section, copied he

Stephen Gass, a patent attorney, has filed more than 120 U.S. patent
applications, and has over 70 issued U.S. patents which pertain to the
SawStop technology.

quote

Stephen Gass told the U.S. government that it should assume that no
manufacturer will be able to introduce injury mitigation technology that
does not infringe on his patents.

After the PTI-JV technology became known, SawStop amended one of their
then-pending patent applications to purportedly cover any table saw that
retracts the blade rapidly within 14 milliseconds – using any retraction
technique after detecting contact. This patent application which was
subsequently allowed by the U.S. Patent Office, is arguably not limited
to SawStop's blade brake technology for retracting the blade, but rather
is designed to cover any retraction technique, hindering the development
of alternative blade retraction technologies and blocking competing
inventors from using their own inventions.

/quote

I believe the only remedy is to allow the gummint to mandate SS use,
build a knock off on a saw, sell it, let Gass sue you, file an
anti-trust suit against the monopoly, and have the patent seized by
the gummint, nullifying the infringement. Then everyone is happy,
fingers are safe, and saws aren't priced out of reach.

The only one to lose this time is the frackin' speaking weasel!
For a change. wink

--
Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why
good ideas are always initially resisted. Good ideas come with a
heavy burden. Which is why so few people have them. So few people
can handle it.
-- Hugh Macleod

On 10/19/2011 12:09 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:34:04 -0500, wrote:

On 9/28/2011 11:17 PM, Mike Paulsen wrote:
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

A rebuttal to Mr Gass by the PTI issued today 10/18 ... if you're going
to argue either way, you still need to read it:


http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/i...ble-saw-safety

Interesting section, copied he

Stephen Gass, a patent attorney, has filed more than 120 U.S. patent
applications, and has over 70 issued U.S. patents which pertain to the
SawStop technology.

quote

Stephen Gass told the U.S. government that it should assume that no
manufacturer will be able to introduce injury mitigation technology that
does not infringe on his patents.

After the PTI-JV technology became known, SawStop amended one of their
then-pending patent applications to purportedly cover any table saw that
retracts the blade rapidly within 14 milliseconds – using any retraction
technique after detecting contact. This patent application which was
subsequently allowed by the U.S. Patent Office, is arguably not limited
to SawStop's blade brake technology for retracting the blade, but rather
is designed to cover any retraction technique, hindering the development
of alternative blade retraction technologies and blocking competing
inventors from using their own inventions.

/quote

I believe the only remedy is to allow the gummint to mandate SS use,
build a knock off on a saw, sell it, let Gass sue you, file an
anti-trust suit against the monopoly, and have the patent seized by
the gummint, nullifying the infringement. Then everyone is happy,
fingers are safe, and saws aren't priced out of reach.

There could be other advantages to the SawStop patents. One of the
manufacutrers may offer an alternative like a CNC router or laser as a
replacement for a spinning saw blade.