On 10/14/2011 4:18 PM, Leon wrote:
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!

Same thing. That's winning the battle but losing the war.

On 14 Oct 2011 21:33:09 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

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

" wrote in
:

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

" wrote in
om:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:d9KdnaX6dP2s3wXTnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earth link.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!

LOL!

Um, it's dark?

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 21:33:09 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

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
news:g5pg971496v8m3lb52ocu5n9uc90e0cl2h@4ax. com:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:d9KdnaX6dP2s3wXTnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@eart hlink.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!

LOL!

Um, it's dark?

Outside, sort of (there are many streetlights here). Inside, not dark.
We have power and it's only 10 PM.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 15 Oct 2011 02:01:50 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 21:33:09 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

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

" wrote in
om:

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

" wrote in
news:g5pg971496v8m3lb52ocu5n9uc90e0cl2h@4ax .com:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:d9KdnaX6dP2s3wXTnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@ear thlink.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!

LOL!

Um, it's dark?

Outside, sort of (there are many streetlights here).

Oh, I forgot. You don't live in civilization. ;-)

Inside, not dark. We have power and it's only 10 PM.

....by the light of the silvery screen.

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.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...s-lodsys.shtml

--
www.ewoodshop.com

In article ,
says...

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.

I'd like to see "plaintiff pays", with a provision that if the suit
succeeds then the damages should include sufficient to compensate the
plaintiff for those costs.

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.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:42:01 -0500, Swingman wrote:

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.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...s-lodsys.shtml

Shakespeare's Dick was right all along.
Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On 10/14/2011 5:18 PM, Leon wrote:

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!

A suit, with no basis whatsoever, was filed against this little company
on which I am a board member. The company was incorporated as a holding
company setup to pay oil and gas royalties, from their pooled land, to
the stockholders who bought shares in the company in the early 1940's
for retirement purposes.

The service of the original notice of this suit was blatantly falsified;
the little company's bank account was seized by a default judgement
because notice was never served and no one in the company, run by the
old folks themselves, were even aware of the suit.

As a result, the company was forced to hire the other lawyer in the
county to defend itself against said suit, try to get their wrongly
seized money back, and to defend against the suit after it was proved
the original service had been falsified.

The entire action was found so egregious by a jury, that the judge,
suspected to be part of the scheme, had no choice but to issue a
judgement against the plaintiff and his attorney, All three of the
lawyers involved (both parties attorneys, and the judge) were high
school good ole boys from the same town.

No one went to jail. The plaintiff's lawyer bought an airplane very
shortly afterward (obviously from the proceeds of his "legal" gain
(after paying the judgement against him, and after splitting with his
cohorts) and killed himself in one of his first flights ... good
riddance, a little justice from above.

For the record, for a number of years I personally supervised eleven
attorneys, all of who worked _directly_ for me. There is _nothing_ I do
not understand about the breed, their training, their blurring of the
distinctions aforementioned, and their ability to make a mockery of the
judicial system, as above, as well as the laws, supposedly written "for
the common good" by themselves in the legislative branches of our
governments.

I have yet to meet a lawyer who would not take advantage a "legality"
because it was the wrong, immoral or unethical thing to do ... once
again, they are trained that way, making the practitioners of this sly
art engender some of the most despicable practices of evil in human
nature that have ever existed.

Their trite, condescending comeback is that you hate them until you need
one ... I argue that if there were far fewer your need would be a damned
sight less; and if the laws they promulgate were written in a moral,
ethical manner in the first place, it is arguable that any need would be
a rare occurrence.

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

On 10/14/2011 5:29 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/14/2011 4:18 PM, Leon wrote:
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!

Same thing. That's winning the battle but losing the war.

NOT the same thing, the suite did not go against him.

On 10/15/2011 10:24 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 5:29 PM, Just Wondering wrote:


Same thing. That's winning the battle but losing the war.

NOT the same thing, the suite did not go against him.

As another, more publicly notorious, lawyer recently said: "that depends
upon what the meaning of "is" is.

Nuff said ....

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

On 10/15/2011 10:42 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/15/2011 10:24 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 5:29 PM, Just Wondering wrote:


Same thing. That's winning the battle but losing the war.

NOT the same thing, the suite did not go against him.

As another, more publicly notorious, lawyer recently said: "that depends
upon what the meaning of "is" is.

Nuff said ....



Yeah!

On Oct 15, 10:41*am, Swingman wrote:

For the record, for a number of years I personally supervised eleven
attorneys, all of who worked _directly_ for me. There is _nothing_ I do
not understand about the breed, their training, their blurring of the
distinctions aforementioned, and their ability to make a mockery of the
judicial system, as above, as well as the laws, supposedly written "for
the common good" by themselves in the legislative branches of our
governments.

Perhaps the lawyers that go in for political office are not typical of
lawyers in general. Perhaps it was that whatever you were doing
attracts a certain type of lawyer.

I have yet to meet a lawyer who would not take advantage a "legality"
because it was the wrong, immoral or unethical thing to do ... once
again, they are trained that way, making the practitioners of this sly
art engender some of the most despicable practices of evil in human
nature that have ever existed.

Yet they're out there. You just haven't had a need for them and/or
you might have political differences with their objectives.

http://www.nlg.org/about/
http://apps.americanbar.org/legalser...ory/texas.html

R

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:42:59 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 10/15/2011 10:24 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 5:29 PM, Just Wondering wrote:


Same thing. That's winning the battle but losing the war.

NOT the same thing, the suite did not go against him.

As another, more publicly notorious, lawyer recently said: "that depends
upon what the meaning of "is" is.

Nuff said ....

Yeah, and the lying sack o' ****e SOB was disbarred shortly
thereafter, despite not being impeached.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

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

"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.

Texas.

OK, that sounds progressive grin

Yeahbut there's always the other side... This clicpped from a news article
about these "flocking" doctors...

"Complaints to the board have increased dramatically, and disciplinary
actions against docs has nearly tripled since 2001".

Yup - they're flocking down there...

--

-Mike-

Bull****!

---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Yeahbut there's always the other side... This clicpped from a news
article
about these "flocking" doctors...

"Complaints to the board have increased dramatically, and disciplinary
actions against docs has nearly tripled since 2001".

Yup - they're flocking down there...

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 21:49:22 -0400, "m II" wrote:

Bull****!

Yup, you're certainly full of it. Couldn't agree more.

Mike Marlow wrote:

Texas.

OK, that sounds progressive grin

Yeahbut there's always the other side... This clicpped from a news
article about these "flocking" doctors...

"Complaints to the board have increased dramatically, and disciplinary
actions against docs has nearly tripled since 2001".

Yup - they're flocking down there...

How about quoting the whole thing:

"An 11-hour hearing in the Texas Legislature last fall featured "angry,
frustrated doctors from Houston to Laredo" venting about " overzealous
oversight" by the Texas Medical Board, the regulatory body that got beefed
up to safeguard Texans from bad docs when the malpractice curbs were
enacted, the Houston Chronicle reported. Complaints to the board have
increased dramatically, and disciplinary actions against docs has nearly
tripled since 2001."

The article goes no further. For example, what does "increased dramatically"
mean? Likewise, what does "nearly tripled" mean? That complaints against the
25,000 physicians in the state went from two to five?

Further, there's no tabulation on the origin of these complaints. Did they
concern the 7,000 doctors that moved to Texas in the last three years? It's
possible that these emigrant doctors brought with them procedures that are
not considered "best practices" by the State of Texas and are being suitably
re-educated.

Even more important, there's no hint as to the outcome of these complaints.
It's possible that each and every one was dismissed because the complaining
patient was a loon.

But with this superficial article you referenced, who knows?

HeyBub wrote:


How about quoting the whole thing:

"An 11-hour hearing in the Texas Legislature last fall featured
"angry, frustrated doctors from Houston to Laredo" venting about "
overzealous oversight" by the Texas Medical Board, the regulatory
body that got beefed up to safeguard Texans from bad docs when the
malpractice curbs were enacted, the Houston Chronicle reported.
Complaints to the board have increased dramatically, and disciplinary
actions against docs has nearly tripled since 2001."

The article goes no further. For example, what does "increased
dramatically" mean? Likewise, what does "nearly tripled" mean? That
complaints against the 25,000 physicians in the state went from two
to five?
Further, there's no tabulation on the origin of these complaints. Did
they concern the 7,000 doctors that moved to Texas in the last three
years? It's possible that these emigrant doctors brought with them
procedures that are not considered "best practices" by the State of
Texas and are being suitably re-educated.

Even more important, there's no hint as to the outcome of these
complaints. It's possible that each and every one was dismissed
because the complaining patient was a loon.

But with this superficial article you referenced, who knows?

That's a fair statement. I only quoted the final sentence because the
remainder of the article pretty much said what you had in your post, but
that sentence was the only aspect of the article that presented a different
aspect of that movement.

--

-Mike-

Mike likes that!

------------------
wrote in message ...

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 21:49:22 -0400, "m II" wrote:

Bull****!

Yup, you're certainly full of it. Couldn't agree more.

wrote:

I would love to see a YMBSM lawsuit designation attached to any
lawsuit before it goes through the courts. With the You Must Be
****ting Me designation a judge would quickly review a case and
determine if it's a nuisance/harassment/absurd case, and if so, apply
the YMBSM designation. The designation would be warning to the
plaintiff that if the case goes against them, they will be held liable
for all court costs, including the defendant's legal fees, and treble
the requested damages. One third of the treble damages would go to
the defendant, one third to the court, and one third to charity. The
losing plaintiff would be able to claim the charitable contribution on
his tax return so he wouldn't feel like he got nothing for his
efforts.

+1 and a big reason I never kill file a non-troll.


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

On 10/16/2011 7:21 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Excellent diagnosis Bub. Another reason I tend to scour long threads
for your wit and insights...

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

How about quoting the whole thing:

"An 11-hour hearing in the Texas Legislature last fall featured "angry,
frustrated doctors from Houston to Laredo" venting about " overzealous
oversight" by the Texas Medical Board, the regulatory body that got beefed
up to safeguard Texans from bad docs when the malpractice curbs were
enacted, the Houston Chronicle reported. Complaints to the board have
increased dramatically, and disciplinary actions against docs has nearly
tripled since 2001."

The article goes no further. For example, what does "increased dramatically"
mean? Likewise, what does "nearly tripled" mean? That complaints against the
25,000 physicians in the state went from two to five?

Further, there's no tabulation on the origin of these complaints. Did they
concern the 7,000 doctors that moved to Texas in the last three years? It's
possible that these emigrant doctors brought with them procedures that are
not considered "best practices" by the State of Texas and are being suitably
re-educated.

Even more important, there's no hint as to the outcome of these complaints.
It's possible that each and every one was dismissed because the complaining
patient was a loon.

But with this superficial article you referenced, who knows?

m II wrote:
Mike likes that!

Well - one of the "Mike"'s here, really could not give a ****. You just are
not worth that much attention. Now - quit top posting.

--

-Mike-






------------------
wrote in message ...

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 21:49:22 -0400, "m II" wrote:

Bull****!

Yup, you're certainly full of it. Couldn't agree more.

On 10/16/11 6:35 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
m II wrote:
Mike likes that!

Well - one of the "Mike"'s here, really could not give a ****. You just are
not worth that much attention. Now - quit top posting.


Someday I'll find a filter that will remove replies to assholes' posts
along with assholes' posts. :-)


--

-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 10/16/2011 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

Someday I'll find a filter that will remove replies to assholes' posts
along with assholes' posts. :-)

+1


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

I know you like that too and are so obsessed with it you will notice a
definite increase in that logical style of posting, everywhere.

Starting right now!

Do try to correct anybody that hasn't killfiltered you yet.

------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Well - one of the "Mike"'s here, really could not give a ****. You
just are
not worth that much attention. Now - quit top posting.

Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a useful
product from practical application. I don't know about the rest of you, but
adding such a huge required expense to an average table saw, makes it fall
into the category of unaffordable for me! Great idea. Love the concept. Have
cut both thumbs numerous times, and definitely appreciate the value of such
a device. Unfortunately, $3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is
also unfortunate that it will most likely become "required equipment"
because of the frivolous lawsuits by the less than adequately equipped end
users, only by virtue of the fact that they can muster enough reserve
intellect to dial a phone, and contact a greedy and unscrupulous lawyer. As
I recall, most of my generation was given "Wood shop" in school. Our
teachers NEVER let the dumb or immature students anywhere near the "REAL"
machines. They somehow knew that these individuals needed to be protected
from their own stupidity, rather than the dangers of the machines. I think
they used to call it "Common Sense!"
As I already stated, " Some of us are just too prone to accidents". I admit
I fall within this category! It only took the slightest lack of attention,
for the briefest of moments to incur my two past injuries. But I am just
bright enough to know how dumb I can be. I went out and bought a new and
improved pushing device the first time I got cut. The second time I got cut,
I actually started to use it. If this type of device was made affordably,
I'd likely go for a new machine that was equipped with it. JUST DON'T FORCE
IT DOWN MY THROAT!
I still believe that, as a real American, I have certain rights. I have the
right to be ignorant and stupid! I have the right to make poor choices! I
have the right to enjoy the thrill of impending danger, and the joy of
escaping fate on a regular basis. I know this all sounds positively insane,
but it is TRUE! No matter how many safety devices get invented, or how much
money gets made by manufacturing them, we Americans will find a way to
circumvent the intended resulting safety level that such devices imbue. Just
look at the record.
The original saws consisted of a mandrel and flange that supported a blade,
and the whole thing was marginally attached to some type of makeshift
support frame. Then the saw was improved with an enclosure and table to
prevent the operator from getting clothing and limbs entangled with the
blade and belts. That's right . . . the BELT used to cause as many injuries
as the blade at one time. A good strong steam engine driving a leather belt
could snatch you right into the darn thing in an instant! Next came a rip
fence to keep the wood being fed into the blade on a true path, preventing
MOST incidence of kickback. Still happens on occasion because some of us
don't know to check the moisture content or the grain of the wood we work
with. Add a trunion to the system, and we lost a lot of the injuries caused
by overextension of the blade above the table. Still managing to mame
ourselves with these tools, somebody came up with the blade guard systems we
all know and love. I don't know of anyone who uses a table saw that wasted
any time in eliminating that one. Even the ones made with lexan, and
including anti kickback devices never proved to prevent the great American
will for freedom to prevent most of us from taking them off, and throwing
them in a drawer someplace. We do reserve the right to be stupid! As stated
earlier, this new device is no exception to this fact. Improper use of
inadequately dried lumber negates the intended application of this new
device. So why should we all be forced to pay for it.
Somehow, the lawyers have saturated our society with the belief that we can
litigate and legislate our way to some type of perfect and safe existence.
It is simply not so. We are armed with certain rights that prevent this. We
are an ingenious people, who will find a way to harm ourselves regardless of
what legislators and lawyers attempt to do in order to protect us from
ourselves. Just like the "Shop Teachers" of old, there is always going to be
the one fool who finds his way into the path of danger and destruction. So
why bother?
It all generates money, plain and simple. Lawyers get lots of it!
Legislators have a reason to exist! A few Americans will have a job, for a
little while, till a Chinese company takes over production (they will have
to in order for ANY table saw to remain affordable) , and an Indian company
takes over the support services. And somewhere along the line, a few of US
may even be prevented from harming ourselves. That is, till we find a way to
bypass the darn thing, and save the expense of ruined blades and expensive
cartridges.
AT SOME POINT, WE AMERICANS MUST BEGIN TO EXERCISE COMMON SENSE! Great job
coming up with this invention, but get realistic about your greed, and try
to exercise a bit of compassion for those of us who would like to be able to
afford such a device. Try to behave like we actually do care about our
fellow man, and his welfare, and the profits will come. The inventor of the
flush toilet didn't try to make a huge amount on every single toilet, but
I'm fairly certain that American Standard, and the other manufacturers are
still doing quite well. Edison lost out on the whole DC current thing, but
his light bulb did ok for a long time.
What I'm saying is simply this . . . If you have a quality invention, it
WILL make you a LOT of money. That is the nature of capitalism. But if you
make a quality device, that is of benefit to the very safety and welfare of
others, you have a moral obligation to offer it at a REASONABLE price. I
know the law says otherwise, but lets face it, the laws are written by
unscrupulous people who have no conscience or other goals except their own
wealth and prosperity. Are you, as an inventor, willing to lend yourself to
such an ideology? Or are you going to follow your conscience, and do the
right thing with the God given blessings that helped you to invent such a
device. I can't help but think that such inspiration comes to a person from
something higher, and for a noble reason beyond our base frailties of greed
and malice. No doubt, it has been a frustrating path dealing with the
corporate giants that have fought you along the way, but why take a stance
that prevents the average guy from realizing the added safety such a tool
could provide? We didn't do any of that to you, and some of us at least
would like to see this device in practical use.
I am, admittedly, one of the dummies who would find a way to bypass such a
device. But I would like to see it as an OPTION for my next saw. Who knows,
I could develop wisdom at some point? It took two cut thumbs to get me wise
enough to use a proper push tool. That guy got his $69.00 from me, but it
was in my time, and at My choice. A good invention, is a good invention.
Market the thing fairly, and people will find their own way to it. That is
the American way. We just don't like having things forced on us. I for one
would go to any length to avoid paying a single dime for one of these
devices if the legislators try to force it on me. Heck, I just gave up on my
old pre catalytic converter vehicle. Darn things just add more expense to an
already expensive item!

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, wrote:

Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a useful
product from practical application. I don't know about the rest of you, but
adding such a huge required expense to an average table saw, makes it fall
into the category of unaffordable for me! Great idea. Love the concept. Have
cut both thumbs numerous times, and definitely appreciate the value of such
a device. Unfortunately, $3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is
also unfortunate that it will most likely become "required equipment"

Once it does, the price will drop as competition and volume bring the
prices down. Probably new technology too. It is the end of the cheap
$99 saw though.






Heck, I just gave up on my
old pre catalytic converter vehicle. Darn things just add more expense to an
already expensive item!


Ever go to one of the car cruises like we have every summer weekend?
Those pre-cat cars may be a thing of beauty, but they sure do stink. I
cannot imagine how we survived the 50's and 60's breathing all that
crap.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, wrote:

Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a useful
product from practical application. I don't know about the rest of you, but
adding such a huge required expense to an average table saw, makes it fall
into the category of unaffordable for me! Great idea. Love the concept. Have

Ditto here.


cut both thumbs numerous times, and definitely appreciate the value of such
a device. Unfortunately, $3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is
also unfortunate that it will most likely become "required equipment"
because of the frivolous lawsuits by the less than adequately equipped end
users, only by virtue of the fact that they can muster enough reserve
intellect to dial a phone, and contact a greedy and unscrupulous lawyer. As
-------------------
Isn't that redundant?


I recall, most of my generation was given "Wood shop" in school. Our
teachers NEVER let the dumb or immature students anywhere near the "REAL"
machines. They somehow knew that these individuals needed to be protected
from their own stupidity, rather than the dangers of the machines. I think
they used to call it "Common Sense!"

Herbert Spencer very wisely stated "The ultimate result of shielding
men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools."


It all generates money, plain and simple. Lawyers get lots of it!

Shakespeare was right.


Legislators have a reason to exist! A few Americans will have a job, for a
little while, till a Chinese company takes over production (they will have
to in order for ANY table saw to remain affordable) , and an Indian company
takes over the support services. And somewhere along the line, a few of US
may even be prevented from harming ourselves. That is, till we find a way to
bypass the darn thing, and save the expense of ruined blades and expensive
cartridges.
AT SOME POINT, WE AMERICANS MUST BEGIN TO EXERCISE COMMON SENSE! Great job
coming up with this invention, but get realistic about your greed, and try
to exercise a bit of compassion for those of us who would like to be able to
afford such a device. Try to behave like we actually do care about our
fellow man, and his welfare, and the profits will come. The inventor of the
flush toilet didn't try to make a huge amount on every single toilet, but
I'm fairly certain that American Standard, and the other manufacturers are
still doing quite well. Edison lost out on the whole DC current thing, but
his light bulb did ok for a long time.
What I'm saying is simply this . . . If you have a quality invention, it
WILL make you a LOT of money. That is the nature of capitalism. But if you
make a quality device, that is of benefit to the very safety and welfare of
others, you have a moral obligation to offer it at a REASONABLE price. I
know the law says otherwise, but lets face it, the laws are written by
unscrupulous people who have no conscience or other goals except their own
wealth and prosperity. Are you, as an inventor, willing to lend yourself to
such an ideology? Or are you going to follow your conscience, and do the
right thing with the God given blessings that helped you to invent such a
device. I can't help but think that such inspiration comes to a person from
something higher, and for a noble reason beyond our base frailties of greed
and malice. No doubt, it has been a frustrating path dealing with the
corporate giants that have fought you along the way, but why take a stance
that prevents the average guy from realizing the added safety such a tool
could provide? We didn't do any of that to you, and some of us at least
would like to see this device in practical use.

The answer is simple: GREED. Rather than be remembered as somewhat of
an altruist who put his wonderful (albeit flawed) invention onto every
brand of saw (and make millions from reasonable licensing and per unit
fees for the next couple decades), he chose the greedy way, wanting a
couple hundred dollars PER SAW (plus mfgr costs for the device) from
each manufacturer. They balked and the rest will go down in infamy.
I'd hate to be part of his family. That name will be **** for eons.


I am, admittedly, one of the dummies who would find a way to bypass such a
device. But I would like to see it as an OPTION for my next saw. Who knows,
I could develop wisdom at some point? It took two cut thumbs to get me wise
enough to use a proper push tool. That guy got his $69.00 from me, but it
was in my time, and at My choice.

Huh? My pushsticks were either $3 from Grizzly or HF or they were
free, using cutoff scrap from my projects. What'd you do, buy one of
those ghastly overpriced holders called the Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrripoff?



A good invention, is a good invention.
Market the thing fairly, and people will find their own way to it. That is
the American way. We just don't like having things forced on us. I for one
would go to any length to avoid paying a single dime for one of these
devices if the legislators try to force it on me. Heck, I just gave up on my
old pre catalytic converter vehicle. Darn things just add more expense to an
already expensive item!

You are not alone in those feelings. Had he been fair, no doubt the
gov't would have mandated its use immediately. If they do so now,
expect a horrendous backlash.

I'm still nervously awaiting the straw which breaks the public's back.
I'm amazed that the Occupy situation isn't an armed conflict yet. I
was amazed that Obamacare didn't start another American revolution.
I just hope that when the straw breaks it, that we don't end up with a
racial riot as well as a political one. When the public reaches
critical mass, anything can happen. Are you prepared?

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

On Nov 20, 10:22*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

The answer is simple: GREED. *Rather than be remembered as somewhat of
an altruist who put his wonderful (albeit flawed) invention onto every
brand of saw (and make millions from reasonable licensing and per unit
fees for the next couple decades), he chose the greedy way, wanting a
couple hundred dollars PER SAW (plus mfgr costs for the device) from
each manufacturer. They balked and the rest will go down in infamy.
I'd hate to be part of his family. *That name will be **** for eons.

That's doubtful. The Nobel name hasn't suffered all that much from
it's dynamite past. History generally ignores the little guy, and 90%
of the populace couldn't care less about a table saw.

I'm still nervously awaiting the straw which breaks the public's back.
I'm amazed that the Occupy situation isn't an armed conflict yet. I
was amazed that Obamacare didn't start another American revolution.
I just hope that when the straw breaks it, that we don't end up with a
racial riot as well as a political one. *When the public reaches
critical mass, anything can happen. *Are you prepared?

I have a space blanket.

R

In article , Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, wrote:

Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a useful
product from practical application. I don't know about the rest of you, but
adding such a huge required expense to an average table saw, makes it fall
into the category of unaffordable for me! Great idea. Love the concept. Have
cut both thumbs numerous times, and definitely appreciate the value of such
a device. Unfortunately, $3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is
also unfortunate that it will most likely become "required equipment"

Once it does, the price will drop as competition and volume bring the
prices down. Probably new technology too. It is the end of the cheap
$99 saw though.

First toilets, then incandescent bulbs, now cheap table saurs.

Thank you, America, for giving us Canadians yet another export product!

--
Woodworking and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:00:30 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, wrote:

Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a useful
product from practical application. I don't know about the rest of you, but
adding such a huge required expense to an average table saw, makes it fall
into the category of unaffordable for me! Great idea. Love the concept. Have
cut both thumbs numerous times, and definitely appreciate the value of such
a device. Unfortunately, $3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is
also unfortunate that it will most likely become "required equipment"

Once it does, the price will drop as competition and volume bring the
prices down. Probably new technology too. It is the end of the cheap
$99 saw though.






Heck, I just gave up on my
old pre catalytic converter vehicle. Darn things just add more expense to an
already expensive item!


Ever go to one of the car cruises like we have every summer weekend?
Those pre-cat cars may be a thing of beauty, but they sure do stink. I
cannot imagine how we survived the 50's and 60's breathing all that
crap.

We followed them at wider distances and at lower rates of speed then,
Ed.

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:00:30 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, wrote:

Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a
useful product from practical application. I don't know about the
rest of you, but adding such a huge required expense to an average
table saw, makes it fall into the category of unaffordable for me!
Great idea. Love the concept. Have cut both thumbs numerous times,
and definitely appreciate the value of such a device. Unfortunately,
$3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is also unfortunate
that it will most likely become "required equipment"

Once it does, the price will drop as competition and volume bring the
prices down. Probably new technology too. It is the end of the cheap
$99 saw though.






Heck, I just gave up on my
old pre catalytic converter vehicle. Darn things just add more
expense to an already expensive item!


Ever go to one of the car cruises like we have every summer weekend?
Those pre-cat cars may be a thing of beauty, but they sure do stink. I
cannot imagine how we survived the 50's and 60's breathing all that
crap.

We followed them at wider distances and at lower rates of speed then,
Ed.

Lower rates of speed??? The max speed on the Mass Pike in the early 70's
was 75MPH, IIRC.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote:


The answer is simple: GREED. Rather than be remembered as somewhat of
an altruist who put his wonderful (albeit flawed) invention onto every
brand of saw (and make millions from reasonable licensing and per unit
fees for the next couple decades), he chose the greedy way, wanting a
couple hundred dollars PER SAW (plus mfgr costs for the device) from
each manufacturer. They balked and the rest will go down in infamy.
I'd hate to be part of his family. That name will be **** for eons.



Here - let me be the guy that decides for you, and for others who produce
products for consumption, just exactly what they should charge based on what
I feel is altruistic. After all - that's what everyone who is arguing for a
"fair" price is saying - they want to dictate what that "fair" price is.
Lord - can't let the guy make more than they think is appropriate! How many
people here did anything more than a simple google search, or read a pdf
file on what this guy is trying to do? How many tried any manner of
assisting alternative approaches? I'll guarantee you - not too damned many.
Instead - most sit here and **** and moan and try to dictate what somebody
else should be allowed to make, based on their own definition of what
somebody else should make. Too much ****ing and moaning and too many vague
and ambiguous statements (like "fair") from too many people who just like to
bitch because someone beat them to the idea...

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Larry Jaques wrote:


The answer is simple: GREED. Rather than be remembered as
somewhat of an altruist who put his wonderful (albeit
flawed) invention onto every brand of saw (and make
millions from reasonable licensing and per unit fees for
the next couple decades), he chose the greedy way, wanting
a couple hundred dollars PER SAW (plus mfgr costs for the
device) from each manufacturer. They balked and the rest
will go down in infamy. I'd hate to be part of his family.
That name will be **** for eons.



Here - let me be the guy that decides for you, and for
others who produce products for consumption, just exactly
what they should charge based on what I feel is altruistic.
After all - that's what everyone who is arguing for a
"fair" price is saying - they want to dictate what that
"fair" price is.

So, explain to me why the owner of the sawstop patent is
involved in a lawsuit against Ryobi unless it was greed. If
the product was so damn good it would sell itself and he
wouldn't need to bother with Ryobi. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Larry

On 20 Nov 2011 20:32:16 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:00:30 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, wrote:

Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a
useful product from practical application. I don't know about the
rest of you, but adding such a huge required expense to an average
table saw, makes it fall into the category of unaffordable for me!
Great idea. Love the concept. Have cut both thumbs numerous times,
and definitely appreciate the value of such a device. Unfortunately,
$3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is also unfortunate
that it will most likely become "required equipment"

Once it does, the price will drop as competition and volume bring the
prices down. Probably new technology too. It is the end of the cheap
$99 saw though.






Heck, I just gave up on my
old pre catalytic converter vehicle. Darn things just add more
expense to an already expensive item!


Ever go to one of the car cruises like we have every summer weekend?
Those pre-cat cars may be a thing of beauty, but they sure do stink. I
cannot imagine how we survived the 50's and 60's breathing all that
crap.

We followed them at wider distances and at lower rates of speed then,
Ed.

Lower rates of speed??? The max speed on the Mass Pike in the early 70's
was 75MPH, IIRC.

Yeah, and the min is 95mph, now (JoyZee Pike, too).

Larry wrote:

So, explain to me why the owner of the sawstop patent is
involved in a lawsuit against Ryobi unless it was greed. If
the product was so damn good it would sell itself and he
wouldn't need to bother with Ryobi. Go ahead, I'll wait...

He was subpoenaed? From the judgment,
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf

it looks like his only involvement was as a witness. It is certainly possible
he was doing so voluntarily, but maybe not.

It would be a pretty poor lawyer that didn't bring Gass into testify whether
Gass wanted to or not.

Damn few products are so damn good they sell themselves, especially safety items
to a low end manufacturer trying to save every nickel. Perhaps there is more
than one greedy person involved here.

-- Doug

Larry wrote:


So, explain to me why the owner of the sawstop patent is
involved in a lawsuit against Ryobi unless it was greed. If
the product was so damn good it would sell itself and he
wouldn't need to bother with Ryobi. Go ahead, I'll wait...


So - anyone who is interested in profit - regardless of the amount of that
profit is motivated by greed? Perhaps he is - I don't know, because I don't
know the guy. What he is doing is fairly commonplace in the world - why
this disproportionate ire over sawstop?

--

-Mike-

On 20 Nov 2011 20:32:16 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:00:30 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Ever go to one of the car cruises like we have every summer weekend?
Those pre-cat cars may be a thing of beauty, but they sure do stink. I
cannot imagine how we survived the 50's and 60's breathing all that
crap.

We followed them at wider distances and at lower rates of speed then,
Ed.

Lower rates of speed??? The max speed on the Mass Pike in the early 70's
was 75MPH, IIRC.

Where'd you get '70s when he was talking about '50s and '60s?

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Larry wrote:


So, explain to me why the owner of the sawstop patent is
involved in a lawsuit against Ryobi unless it was greed.
If the product was so damn good it would sell itself and
he wouldn't need to bother with Ryobi. Go ahead, I'll
wait...


So - anyone who is interested in profit - regardless of the
amount of that profit is motivated by greed? Perhaps he is
- I don't know, because I don't know the guy. What he is
doing is fairly commonplace in the world - why this
disproportionate ire over sawstop?


You're correct, it is fairly commplace, that sir -is- the
problem.

It's not about how much money he's making, it's about the
methods he's trying to use to make it (see quote at the bottom).
He came up with an invention that based on cost most people
won't buy. So instead he lobbies to get laws passed requiring
the use of his invention.
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/bal.../TableSaws.pdf

The plantiff admitted he was using the saw with the guard and
fence removed, sounding as though he was free handing his cuts.
How about some personal responsibility? You stick your finger in
a table saw you lose a finger. If you choose to purchase a
product that prevents that from happening, good for you, I'm
sure you'll be happy with it.

Admittedly there have been many improvements in products that
make them safer, some probably as a result of litigation such as
this case (stupidity, plain and clear). It's also costing us an
enormous amount of money for the government to babysit everyone
that isn't smart enough to survive on their own. Product
liability is a huge financial drain on everyone. The only
winners are a few victims and a lot of attorneys.

If there wasn't a victim involved, personally, it would thrill
me to see the first failure of the SawStop mechanism. Maybe he'd
have a different point of view when the shoe's on the other
foot.

"Stephen Gass, the inventor of the SawStop technology that
safety advocates would like to see on table saws, has retained
Pamela Gilbert, a former executive director at the CPSC, to
lobby for a saw safety rule that could help make Gass wealthy.
Gass, of Tualatin, Ore., paid Gilbert $20,000 over a two-month
period in the first quarter of the year."

Read mo http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/new-rules-for-
table-saws-sought-to-cut-amputations-052511#ixzz1eJ8zOh00

Larry

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Where'd you get '70s when he was talking about '50s and '60s?

I wasn't in the US before the fall of '69 ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid