" wrote in
news
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike
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. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer,
et al. (“petitioners”) requested that we require performance
standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact
with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has
contributed to Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really
needs government control?

FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of
government's damned business.

They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a host
of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it looks like it
should be personal option, but I'd like to get a discount on my medical
insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I don't have (yet))

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
" wrote in
news
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike
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. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James
Fulmer, et al. (“petitioners”) requested that we require
performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent
injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has
contributed to Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder
how many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there
actually are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the
country really needs government control?

FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of
government's damned business.

They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a
host of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it
looks like it should be personal option, but I'd like to get a
discount on my medical insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I
don't have (yet))

Well... if we're going to legislate these things to protect us from
everything that could hurt us, then why not legislate menopausal and
post-menopausal wives? Hell - a lot more harm comes from them than from
table saws...

--

-Mike-

On 29 Sep 2011 16:52:38 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike
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. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer,
et al. (“petitioners”) requested that we require performance
standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact
with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has
contributed to Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really
needs government control?

FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of
government's damned business.

They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a host
of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it looks like it
should be personal option, but I'd like to get a discount on my medical
insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I don't have (yet))

The federal government does no such thing! If you find an insurance carrier
that gives a discount for a SawStop, or for that matter a flat roof, who
cares?! Your choice and theirs.

I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
didn't

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


I wouldn't buy a SawStop!


I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this particular one.

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:


I wouldn't buy a SawStop!


I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this particular one.

The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware, crap
company.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


I wouldn't buy a SawStop!


I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
particular one.

The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
crap company.

I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
anyone would call them a crap company.

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


I wouldn't buy a SawStop!


I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
particular one.

The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
crap company.

I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
anyone would call them a crap company.

Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
crap company.

I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage
to leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be
doing something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money.
God bless them for going for it in what ever way they can do it.
Don't understand why anyone would call them a crap company.

Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.

I guess it's all in what one considers unethical.

--

-Mike-

On 9/29/2011 1:44 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


I wouldn't buy a SawStop!


I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this particular one.

The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware, crap
company.

I'd have to call that a classi case of cutting off your nose to spite
your face.

In my situation, "I" come first regardless of who makes it. I'm not
going to get hung up on a detail if I will be protected.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:22:05 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 9/29/2011 1:44 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


I wouldn't buy a SawStop!


I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this particular one.

The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware, crap
company.

I'd have to call that a classi case of cutting off your nose to spite
your face.

Maybe. I don't buy electronics off the back of a truck, either.

In my situation, "I" come first regardless of who makes it. I'm not
going to get hung up on a detail if I will be protected.

Not sure how this applies here.

wrote
The federal government does no such thing! If you find an insurance
carrier
that gives a discount for a SawStop, or for that matter a flat roof, who
cares?! Your choice and theirs.

I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
didn't


Our workman's comp carrier is strongly recommending them. I don't know if
they discount rates though, since we have no saws at work.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:14:53 +0200, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote
The federal government does no such thing! If you find an insurance
carrier
that gives a discount for a SawStop, or for that matter a flat roof, who
cares?! Your choice and theirs.

I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
didn't


Our workman's comp carrier is strongly recommending them. I don't know if
they discount rates though, since we have no saws at work.

Great. Have at it. I much prefer my Unisaur, at less than half the price.

Our workman's comp carrier is strongly recommending them. I don't know if
they discount rates though, since we have no saws at work.

Great. Have at it. I much prefer my Unisaur, at less than half the price.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When they offer a saw stop with a 5 HP motor and a 12 or 14 inch blade, I'll
be listening.

-- Jim in NC

On 9/29/11 12:52 PM, Han wrote:

They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a host
of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it looks like it
should be personal option, but I'd like to get a discount on my medical
insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I don't have (yet))

My home and life insurance companies never asked about a shop or power
tools, so I am pretty sure I wouldn't get a discount. Don't really need
health insurance in Canada, so I don't know about it being on the list
of questions.

--
Froz...


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