Leon wrote:

Answer me this: Wouldn't a sliding table result in the same number -
or close thereto - of reduced accidents as a SawStop?


No! You can still easily cut yourself with a sliding table. The
point of the SawStop is to prevent an accident when you do something
stupid. A sled does not prevent you from doing something stupid.



A table saw sled encourages you to keep your fingers away from the blade -
and still make the desired cut.

But you may be right. I suspect the majority of injuries occur when ripping
a (narrow) board. Sleds don't work for squat when ripping.

On Monday, October 10, 2011 6:35:41 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...


Really no need to sell it to the industry, SawStop is selling more than
it's share of TS's by a wide margin.

If there's "no need to sell it to the industry" then why is there a need
to regulate the industry into buying it?

Depends on WHOSE needs one wishes to meet.

Unsafe or careless users of saws ...
Woodsaw manufacturers who don't have any technology that
could replace Gass's patent,....
Gass and Sawstop ...
Institutions with responsibility-for-people issues (schools, insurers)...
Folk who have good safety habits and see no problems...

So, whose needs are most vital in the minds of CPSC? I'm
thinking that 'unsafe or careless users' demand most of their attention.
That's because they look at consumer safety, naturally.
Twisted boards, loose knots, guards removed and 'too fiddly'
to replace... there's lots of learning to do before one is ready to
use a tablesaw safely.

The statistics that guide CPSC are all about the folk who learn
the hard way. I know and love some of those kind of
people: think of the children.

On 10/11/2011 11:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:

Answer me this: Wouldn't a sliding table result in the same number -
or close thereto - of reduced accidents as a SawStop?


No! You can still easily cut yourself with a sliding table. The
point of the SawStop is to prevent an accident when you do something
stupid. A sled does not prevent you from doing something stupid.



A table saw sled encourages you to keep your fingers away from the blade -
and still make the desired cut.

But you may be right. I suspect the majority of injuries occur when ripping
a (narrow) board. Sleds don't work for squat when ripping.



You might be surprised how many injuries happen when not even cutting
wood... I know I was. ;~(

On 10/11/2011 11:29 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:

You forgetting about high manufacturing costs to do business here? It's
not just the taxes.

Er, not exactly. Last year, BMW built 110,000 cars in its Spartanburg, S.C.
plant and EXPORTED them. Toyota builds cars in Tennessee and ships them to
Japan!

Our manufacturing costs are not necessarily greater than foreign plants
because we use so much more automation in some industries.

Like automobiles.

Shoes, not so much.



those are particular examples that the unions don't have a strangle hold
on the manufacturer. But look at power tools and computer components,
and electronics in general.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:49:41 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/11/2011 11:29 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:

You forgetting about high manufacturing costs to do business here? It's
not just the taxes.

Er, not exactly. Last year, BMW built 110,000 cars in its Spartanburg, S.C.
plant and EXPORTED them. Toyota builds cars in Tennessee and ships them to
Japan!

Our manufacturing costs are not necessarily greater than foreign plants
because we use so much more automation in some industries.

Like automobiles.

Shoes, not so much.



those are particular examples that the unions don't have a strangle hold
on the manufacturer. But look at power tools and computer components,
and electronics in general.

Consumer electronics, yes. Electronics in general, not as much.

On Oct 8, 10:42*am, Han wrote:
The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Nothing personal in any of my remarks. To wit:

Too many of the fine people here comment from the basis of their own
heart/beliefs.
This is where you are all so wrong.
Law school teaches one to detach from whatever morals you may have/
had. Focus on money. When you lose a case, money is ok, when you win a
case, money is better.

THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:42*am, Han wrote:
The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Nothing personal in any of my remarks. To wit:

Too many of the fine people here comment from the basis of their own
heart/beliefs.
This is where you are all so wrong.
Law school teaches one to detach from whatever morals you may have/
had. Focus on money. When you lose a case, money is ok, when you win a
case, money is better.

THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

Hence their nickname: speaking weasels.

--
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge.
-- Marie Ebner von Eschenbach

On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:42 am, wrote:
The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Nothing personal in any of my remarks. To wit:

Too many of the fine people here comment from the basis of their own
heart/beliefs.
This is where you are all so wrong.
Law school teaches one to detach from whatever morals you may have/
had. Focus on money. When you lose a case, money is ok, when you win a
case, money is better.

THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
which basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.

On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity, which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral, unethical, etc.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but is
indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.

Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.

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

On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity, which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.

You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you are
personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an
emotional response. It is not factually accurate.

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral, unethical,
etc.

I cannot speak for every law school, neither can you. From personal
experience, your statement is not true as to the law school I went to.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but is
indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.

My credit card rate is about half that. Keep in mind that a credit card
purchase is basically an unsecured loan of other people's money to
someone offering no proof of ability to repay. I also remember that (a)
no one forced me to enter into a credit card contract, I did it
voluntarily and with eyes open; (b) no one forces me to make purchases
on my credit card, and (c) I can avoid interest payments altogether just
by paying off my balance.

If it's high interest rates that bother you, how about denigrating pawn
shops and those companies that loan instant money against your future
paychecks and tax refunds, instead of credit card companies? They often
charge 5% or more a MONTH.

Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.

See above.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:21:24 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity, which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral, unethical, etc.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but is
indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.

How much of that debt that is at 27.9% is _never_ paid back?

Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.

Mine are 8.something% and 9.something%, respectively. In practice they're
-1.something%.

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
which basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For
example, a contract claim may fail because there was no contract,
but an injured party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a
property claim could fail because of title defects, but the injured
party might still have a claim based on equitable title. Or a
law-based claim may be successfully defended against on estoppel,
laches, and other equitable defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law,
lawyers routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business
model.

You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you
are personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an
emotional response. It is not factually accurate.

You're probably both right. Although I do believe (I'm a retired
biochemist) that the duty of a lawyer is first and foremost to his
client, so that (within the law) he should make his client look as
pristine and innocent as possible and make the opposition look like the
worst possible human/corporation/whatever.

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral,
unethical, etc.

I cannot speak for every law school, neither can you. From personal
experience, your statement is not true as to the law school I went to.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but
is indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card
companies.

My credit card rate is about half that. Keep in mind that a credit
card purchase is basically an unsecured loan of other people's money
to someone offering no proof of ability to repay. I also remember
that (a) no one forced me to enter into a credit card contract, I did
it voluntarily and with eyes open; (b) no one forces me to make
purchases on my credit card, and (c) I can avoid interest payments
altogether just by paying off my balance.

If it's high interest rates that bother you, how about denigrating
pawn shops and those companies that loan instant money against your
future paychecks and tax refunds, instead of credit card companies?
They often charge 5% or more a MONTH.

Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.

See above.

It's very easy to fall prey to the credit card shenanigans, if you
misread the fine print and don't have the wherewithal to extricate
yourself. Then it goes from being in deep **** to being permanently in
deep ****. Just ask anyone who's been foreclosed on.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Han wrote:

It's very easy to fall prey to the credit card shenanigans, if you
misread the fine print and don't have the wherewithal to extricate
yourself. Then it goes from being in deep **** to being permanently in
deep ****. Just ask anyone who's been foreclosed on.

That's when you might want a good bankruptcy attorney.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:21:24 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
which basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For
example, a contract claim may fail because there was no contract,
but an injured party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or
a property claim could fail because of title defects, but the
injured party might still have a claim based on equitable title. Or
a law-based claim may be successfully defended against on estoppel,
laches, and other equitable defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law,
lawyers routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their
business model.

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral,
unethical, etc.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but
is indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card
companies.

How much of that debt that is at 27.9% is _never_ paid back?

Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.

Mine are 8.something% and 9.something%, respectively. In practice
they're -1.something%.

The 18-month, zero percent rate on my sweeties two credit cards just
expired. They were both to jump to ~18%. She switched the balances to two
NEW cards at, you guessed it, zero percent.

In article ,
Han wrote:
You're probably both right. Although I do believe (I'm a retired
biochemist) that the duty of a lawyer is first and foremost to his
client, so that (within the law) he should make his client look as
pristine and innocent as possible and make the opposition look like the
worst possible human/corporation/whatever.

Correct. After all, consider the lawyer who has to defend a murderer and
try to convince a jury that, despite all the evidence, his client is
innocent, when he knows he is not.

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:48:20 -0600, Just Wondering
deep ****. Just ask anyone who's been foreclosed on.

That's when you might want a good bankruptcy attorney.

Catch 22 don't you think? You don't have the money for your mortgage,
so it's foreclosed on. If that happened, then it's highly unlikely
you're going to find the money for a good bankruptcy attorney.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:48:20 -0600, Just Wondering
deep ****. Just ask anyone who's been foreclosed on.

That's when you might want a good bankruptcy attorney.

Catch 22 don't you think? You don't have the money for your mortgage,
so it's foreclosed on. If that happened, then it's highly unlikely
you're going to find the money for a good bankruptcy attorney.


From what I've seen (on tv), lots of people who get foreclosed on plan
for it months in advance, accumulating the money they "saved". That
way, they have the means to move into an apartment once they are evicted..

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:48:12 -0400, Bill
wrote:
From what I've seen (on tv), lots of people who get foreclosed on plan
for it months in advance, accumulating the money they "saved". That
way, they have the means to move into an apartment once they are evicted..

I guess that makes sense. If someone realizes they can't meet their
payment schedule, they might just stop payments altogether and save
what they can until they're kicked out.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:48:12 -0400,
wrote:
From what I've seen (on tv), lots of people who get foreclosed on plan
for it months in advance, accumulating the money they "saved". That
way, they have the means to move into an apartment once they are evicted..

I guess that makes sense. If someone realizes they can't meet their
payment schedule, they might just stop payments altogether and save
what they can until they're kicked out.

From what I can tell, the "game" is played very well. Some of the
evicted may even salvage anything of value before they go (like copper).
There was a show about this on "60 Minutes", or similar.

The other day, I heard about a man getting foreclosed upon, being
evicted, and the bank still coming after him for what the bank lost
after selling the house. Moral: If one is getting foreclosed upon, he or
she needs a lawyer.

On 10/12/2011 1:48 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:21:24 -0500, wrote:

On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity, which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral, unethical, etc.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but is
indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.

How much of that debt that is at 27.9% is _never_ paid back?

How much IS paid back???

On 10/12/2011 1:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity, which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.

You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you are
personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an emotional
response. It is not factually accurate.

Nothing emotional about it, my firiend ... but immediately attacking the
man and NOT the issue, makes you sound like the lawyer you apparently are?

Although it's none of your business, I was indeed party to a lawsuit so
frivolous that _both_ the plaintiff, and his attorney, were ordered to
pay the dependents $15K each. The plaintiff immediately filed for
bankruptcy, the attorney paid in order to keep his license, but left the
company with a +$50K bill for our attorneys fees to defend what should
never have been brought in the first place.

All nice and legally done by members of your profession ... but immoral,
unethical and yes, unfair as hell of the old retiree stockholders who
were counting on the money paid to, and because of, the scumbag lawyers.

But hell, you convinced yourself, with NO evidence, that I'm "just
parroting what others say ...".

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral, unethical,
etc.

From personal
experience, your statement is not true as to the law school I went to.

Enough said. The truth comes out.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but is
indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.

My credit card rate is about half that. Keep in mind that a credit card
purchase is basically an unsecured loan of other people's money to
someone offering no proof of ability to repay. I also remember that (a)
no one forced me to enter into a credit card contract, I did it
voluntarily and with eyes open; (b) no one forces me to make purchases
on my credit card, and (c) I can avoid interest payments altogether just
by paying off my balance.

If it's high interest rates that bother you, how about denigrating pawn
shops and those companies that loan instant money against your future
paychecks and tax refunds, instead of credit card companies? They often
charge 5% or more a MONTH.

Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.

See above.

Oh yes, what a wonderful, caring industry, and how altruistic their
lawyer lobbyist lapdogs.

Yeah, it's really the laymen consumer who writes the contracts and the
laws that are so in favor of the industry that even congress becomes
shamed and is forced to step in to correct theirs, and their brethren's
conduct.

History will prove that your profession is contributing to, and
facilitating, the downfall of this country. Your profession should be
ashamed of itself instead of slobbering in the public trough with such
condescension.

Don't bother to respond to me, target your guaranteed response excusing
such conduct to those who might be fooled. I won't be reading it.

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

Now here is an example of what we call a "crybaby" response. Not an ad
hominem attack, but only regarding the context and how it was
delivered.

Then somebody is supposed to care if he uses killfilters? Who needs
that kind of bias anyway?

Dear, dear me.

-----------------
"Swingman" wrote in message
...

On 10/12/2011 1:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an
injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property
claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might
still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other
equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law,
lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.


You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you
are
personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an
emotional
response. It is not factually accurate.

Nothing emotional about it, my firiend ... but immediately attacking
the
man and NOT the issue, makes you sound like the lawyer you apparently
are?

Although it's none of your business, I was indeed party to a lawsuit so
frivolous that _both_ the plaintiff, and his attorney, were ordered to
pay the dependents $15K each. The plaintiff immediately filed for
bankruptcy, the attorney paid in order to keep his license, but left
the
company with a +$50K bill for our attorneys fees to defend what should
never have been brought in the first place.

All nice and legally done by members of your profession ... but
immoral,
unethical and yes, unfair as hell of the old retiree stockholders who
were counting on the money paid to, and because of, the scumbag
lawyers.

But hell, you convinced yourself, with NO evidence, that I'm "just
parroting what others say ...".

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral,
unethical,
etc.

From personal
experience, your statement is not true as to the law school I went
to.

Enough said. The truth comes out.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but
is
indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.

My credit card rate is about half that. Keep in mind that a credit
card
purchase is basically an unsecured loan of other people's money to
someone offering no proof of ability to repay. I also remember that
(a)
no one forced me to enter into a credit card contract, I did it
voluntarily and with eyes open; (b) no one forces me to make
purchases
on my credit card, and (c) I can avoid interest payments altogether
just
by paying off my balance.

If it's high interest rates that bother you, how about denigrating
pawn
shops and those companies that loan instant money against your future
paychecks and tax refunds, instead of credit card companies? They
often
charge 5% or more a MONTH.

Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.

See above.

Oh yes, what a wonderful, caring industry, and how altruistic their
lawyer lobbyist lapdogs.

Yeah, it's really the laymen consumer who writes the contracts and the
laws that are so in favor of the industry that even congress becomes
shamed and is forced to step in to correct theirs, and their brethren's
conduct.

History will prove that your profession is contributing to, and
facilitating, the downfall of this country. Your profession should be
ashamed of itself instead of slobbering in the public trough with such
condescension.

Don't bother to respond to me, target your guaranteed response excusing
such conduct to those who might be fooled. I won't be reading it.

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

Swingman wrote in
:

snip

Amen to that and thanks for letting it fly like that!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
says...

On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Han wrote:

It's very easy to fall prey to the credit card shenanigans, if you
misread the fine print and don't have the wherewithal to extricate
yourself. Then it goes from being in deep **** to being permanently in
deep ****. Just ask anyone who's been foreclosed on.

That's when you might want a good bankruptcy attorney.

Not really clear on "credit card shenanigans" resulting in "been
forclosed on". One has to to be really stupid and have an insanely high
credit limit to buy a house with a credit card.

On 10/13/2011 9:16 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Han wrote:

It's very easy to fall prey to the credit card shenanigans, if you
misread the fine print and don't have the wherewithal to extricate
yourself. Then it goes from being in deep **** to being permanently in
deep ****. Just ask anyone who's been foreclosed on.

That's when you might want a good bankruptcy attorney.

Not really clear on "credit card shenanigans" resulting in "been
forclosed on". One has to to be really stupid and have an insanely high
credit limit to buy a house with a credit card.



(Probably a popular attitude) "If I owe $150K on my hourse, what's
another $25K on a credit card? And after a few years, the difference
between $25K and $50K doesn't seem so big...". I guess my point (and
car dealers know that), is that when the numbers get big one can
overwhelm people to the point where they don't even care anymore. What's
another $1250 for a stereo on a $27000 car? It probably only affects
the payments by 2 digits.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:47:08 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 1:48 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:21:24 -0500, wrote:

On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity, which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral, unethical, etc.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but is
indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.

How much of that debt that is at 27.9% is _never_ paid back?

How much IS paid back???

The point being that high interest rates reflect high risk.

On 13 Oct 2011 13:03:09 GMT, Han wrote:

Swingman wrote in
m:

snip

Amen to that and thanks for letting it fly like that!!

+1


--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

On 10/13/2011 7:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 1:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.

You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you are
personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an emotional
response. It is not factually accurate.

Nothing emotional about it, my firiend ... but immediately attacking the
man and NOT the issue, makes you sound like the lawyer you apparently are?

Although it's none of your business, I was indeed party to a lawsuit so
frivolous that _both_ the plaintiff, and his attorney, were ordered to
pay the dependents $15K each. The plaintiff immediately filed for
bankruptcy, the attorney paid in order to keep his license, but left the
company with a +$50K bill for our attorneys fees to defend what should
never have been brought in the first place.

All nice and legally done by members of your profession ... but immoral,
unethical and yes, unfair as hell of the old retiree stockholders who
were counting on the money paid to, and because of, the scumbag lawyers.

But hell, you convinced yourself, with NO evidence, that I'm "just
parroting what others say ...".

Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral, unethical,
etc.

From personal
experience, your statement is not true as to the law school I went to.

Enough said. The truth comes out.

27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but is
indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.

My credit card rate is about half that. Keep in mind that a credit card
purchase is basically an unsecured loan of other people's money to
someone offering no proof of ability to repay. I also remember that (a)
no one forced me to enter into a credit card contract, I did it
voluntarily and with eyes open; (b) no one forces me to make purchases
on my credit card, and (c) I can avoid interest payments altogether just
by paying off my balance.

If it's high interest rates that bother you, how about denigrating pawn
shops and those companies that loan instant money against your future
paychecks and tax refunds, instead of credit card companies? They often
charge 5% or more a MONTH.

Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.

See above.

Oh yes, what a wonderful, caring industry, and how altruistic their
lawyer lobbyist lapdogs.

Yeah, it's really the laymen consumer who writes the contracts and the
laws that are so in favor of the industry that even congress becomes
shamed and is forced to step in to correct theirs, and their brethren's
conduct.

History will prove that your profession is contributing to, and
facilitating, the downfall of this country. Your profession should be
ashamed of itself instead of slobbering in the public trough with such
condescension.

Don't bother to respond to me, target your guaranteed response excusing
such conduct to those who might be fooled. I won't be reading it.



I know of one attorney that has my respect. He mostly works with child
custody suites and lets the client decide what he or she thinks his
time was worth. He agrees to take as pay the amount that the client
feels he can afford. He is not in a great financial situation as you
can imagine but he stays busy.

On 10/13/2011 2:20 PM, Leon wrote:

I know of one attorney that has my respect. He mostly works with child
custody suites and lets the client decide what he or she thinks his time
was worth. He agrees to take as pay the amount that the client feels he
can afford. He is not in a great financial situation as you can imagine
but he stays busy.

Facts:

Organized crime members are historically some of the most charitable
people on earth.

One attorney in a town will starve to death; two, and they both will
flourish.

We put up with legal extortion because we allow the practitioners to
make the laws.

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

In article ,
says...

On 10/13/2011 9:16 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Han wrote:

It's very easy to fall prey to the credit card shenanigans, if you
misread the fine print and don't have the wherewithal to extricate
yourself. Then it goes from being in deep **** to being permanently in
deep ****. Just ask anyone who's been foreclosed on.

That's when you might want a good bankruptcy attorney.

Not really clear on "credit card shenanigans" resulting in "been
forclosed on". One has to to be really stupid and have an insanely high
credit limit to buy a house with a credit card.



(Probably a popular attitude) "If I owe $150K on my hourse, what's
another $25K on a credit card? And after a few years, the difference
between $25K and $50K doesn't seem so big...". I guess my point (and
car dealers know that), is that when the numbers get big one can
overwhelm people to the point where they don't even care anymore. What's
another $1250 for a stereo on a $27000 car? It probably only affects
the payments by 2 digits.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this addresses the question.

Swingman wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:20 PM, Leon wrote:

I know of one attorney that has my respect. He mostly works with
child custody suites and lets the client decide what he or she
thinks his time was worth. He agrees to take as pay the amount that
the client feels he can afford. He is not in a great financial
situation as you can imagine but he stays busy.

Facts:

Organized crime members are historically some of the most charitable
people on earth.

One attorney in a town will starve to death; two, and they both will
flourish.

We put up with legal extortion because we allow the practitioners to
make the laws.

There ARE some (possible) remedies. My state recently passed a "loser pays"
law, hoping to curtail frivolous lawsuits. We'll see.

My state passed a personal injury reform package a few years back. Medical
malpractice insurance rates have dropped by almost 50% and doctors are
flocking to the area. So tweaks to the law sometimes work well.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

There ARE some (possible) remedies. My state recently passed a "loser
pays" law, hoping to curtail frivolous lawsuits. We'll see.

My state passed a personal injury reform package a few years back.
Medical malpractice insurance rates have dropped by almost 50% and
doctors are flocking to the area. So tweaks to the law sometimes work
well.

Tennessee? Those "reforms" are good things IMO.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 14 Oct 2011 16:30:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

There ARE some (possible) remedies. My state recently passed a "loser
pays" law, hoping to curtail frivolous lawsuits. We'll see.

My state passed a personal injury reform package a few years back.
Medical malpractice insurance rates have dropped by almost 50% and
doctors are flocking to the area. So tweaks to the law sometimes work
well.

Tennessee? Those "reforms" are good things IMO.

Texas.

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 16:30:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:d9KdnaX6dP2s3wXTnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthlink. com:

There ARE some (possible) remedies. My state recently passed a "loser
pays" law, hoping to curtail frivolous lawsuits. We'll see.

My state passed a personal injury reform package a few years back.
Medical malpractice insurance rates have dropped by almost 50% and
doctors are flocking to the area. So tweaks to the law sometimes work
well.

Tennessee? Those "reforms" are good things IMO.

Texas.

OK, that sounds progressive grin

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 14 Oct 2011 16:36:27 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 16:30:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:d9KdnaX6dP2s3wXTnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthlink .com:

There ARE some (possible) remedies. My state recently passed a "loser
pays" law, hoping to curtail frivolous lawsuits. We'll see.

My state passed a personal injury reform package a few years back.
Medical malpractice insurance rates have dropped by almost 50% and
doctors are flocking to the area. So tweaks to the law sometimes work
well.

Tennessee? Those "reforms" are good things IMO.

Texas.

OK, that sounds progressive grin

Oh, because it's Texas it's not good. Gotcha.

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 16:36:27 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 14 Oct 2011 16:30:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:d9KdnaX6dP2s3wXTnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthlin k.com:

There ARE some (possible) remedies. My state recently passed a
"loser pays" law, hoping to curtail frivolous lawsuits. We'll see.

My state passed a personal injury reform package a few years back.
Medical malpractice insurance rates have dropped by almost 50% and
doctors are flocking to the area. So tweaks to the law sometimes
work well.

Tennessee? Those "reforms" are good things IMO.

Texas.

OK, that sounds progressive grin

Oh, because it's Texas it's not good. Gotcha.

No, that's not it. I wanted to express that in some areas you and I do
agree, and I consider myself liberal/progressive. But indeed, in some
respects Texas isn't really progressive; we could leave that discussion
for another time.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 14 Oct 2011 19:28:55 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 16:36:27 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 16:30:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:d9KdnaX6dP2s3wXTnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthli nk.com:

There ARE some (possible) remedies. My state recently passed a
"loser pays" law, hoping to curtail frivolous lawsuits. We'll see.

My state passed a personal injury reform package a few years back.
Medical malpractice insurance rates have dropped by almost 50% and
doctors are flocking to the area. So tweaks to the law sometimes
work well.

Tennessee? Those "reforms" are good things IMO.

Texas.

OK, that sounds progressive grin

Oh, because it's Texas it's not good. Gotcha.

No, that's not it. I wanted to express that in some areas you and I do
agree, and I consider myself liberal/progressive.

I certainly don't consider restricting torts to be on the "progressive's"
platform. In fact, I've never heard *one* in congress demanding limitations
on ambulance chasers. It's more of a conservative thing, but it's good to
know you can lean right, too. ;-)

But indeed, in some respects Texas isn't really progressive; we could leave
that discussion for another time.

That's because it isn't. Texas is conservative; blood-red.

On 10/13/2011 6:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 1:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.

You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you are
personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an emotional
response. It is not factually accurate.

I was indeed party to a lawsuit so frivolous that _both_ the
plaintiff, and his attorney, were ordered to
pay the dependents $15K each. The plaintiff immediately filed for
bankruptcy, the attorney paid in order to keep his license, but left the
company with a +$50K bill for our attorneys fees to defend what should
never have been brought in the first place.

So I was right, you've had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the
blame game.

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 19:28:55 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 14 Oct 2011 16:36:27 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 14 Oct 2011 16:30:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:d9KdnaX6dP2s3wXTnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthl ink.com:

There ARE some (possible) remedies. My state recently passed a
"loser pays" law, hoping to curtail frivolous lawsuits. We'll
see.

My state passed a personal injury reform package a few years
back. Medical malpractice insurance rates have dropped by almost
50% and doctors are flocking to the area. So tweaks to the law
sometimes work well.

Tennessee? Those "reforms" are good things IMO.

Texas.

OK, that sounds progressive grin

Oh, because it's Texas it's not good. Gotcha.

No, that's not it. I wanted to express that in some areas you and I
do agree, and I consider myself liberal/progressive.

I certainly don't consider restricting torts to be on the
"progressive's" platform. In fact, I've never heard *one* in congress
demanding limitations on ambulance chasers. It's more of a
conservative thing, but it's good to know you can lean right, too.
;-)

But indeed, in some respects Texas isn't really progressive; we could
leave that discussion for another time.

That's because it isn't. Texas is conservative; blood-red.

Well,at least we agree on more than 1 thing. Let's keep going!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/14/2011 4:07 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/13/2011 6:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 1:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:


THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
which
basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.


Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model.

You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you are
personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an emotional
response. It is not factually accurate.

I was indeed party to a lawsuit so frivolous that _both_ the
plaintiff, and his attorney, were ordered to
pay the dependents $15K each. The plaintiff immediately filed for
bankruptcy, the attorney paid in order to keep his license, but left the
company with a +$50K bill for our attorneys fees to defend what should
never have been brought in the first place.

So I was right, you've had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the
blame game.

No he actually had the law suite go for him but it cost him and others a
small fortune to win. Damn ambulance chasers!