On 21 Nov 2011 12:06:58 GMT, Han wrote:

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 ...

(tilts head) sigh

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

Han wrote:


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

The fall of 69 - isn't that what happens after you start having kids?

--

-Mike-

On 21 Nov 2011 04:37:22 GMT, Larry wrote:

"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?

It's proportionate, Mike. I get upset every time I hear about a scam
like this, no matter who pulls it.


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

Where's Mike's head? "It's OK because everybody does it."?
tsk tsk tsk Go talk to an inmate in a federal prison. Are you going
to start raping men, stabbing other inmates and guards, and taking
illegal drugs just because he says "Everybody's doing it."? Hmm?


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.

But the people making all the REAL money are the attorneys.
Victims get a pittance of the overall funds transferred in these
rapes, erm, I mean lawsuits.


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

Why isn't lobbying illegal, or at least pursued as influence peddling,
yet? sigh

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

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 21 Nov 2011 04:37:22 GMT, Larry wrote:

"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?

It's proportionate, Mike. I get upset every time I hear about a scam
like this, no matter who pulls it.


That's fair. To be equally fair - I get upset when I hear people (not at
all singling you out here Larry) grousing about a person or a company making
a profit, and stating that the party in question should offer their product
for some price that they feel is appropriate, while they themselves would
not work for free. It's the Capitalist in me coming through...


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

Where's Mike's head? "It's OK because everybody does it."?
tsk tsk tsk Go talk to an inmate in a federal prison. Are you going
to start raping men, stabbing other inmates and guards, and taking
illegal drugs just because he says "Everybody's doing it."? Hmm?


Well, that's a bit of an extreem analogy, and I'm not sure it really applies
to this discussion. Your analogy references illegal activities, while Gass'
activities are completely within the law - regardless of how distasteful
they may be to some.


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.

But the people making all the REAL money are the attorneys.
Victims get a pittance of the overall funds transferred in these
rapes, erm, I mean lawsuits.


Actually, if it's not a class action suit, the plaintif makes the most of
the money.


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

Why isn't lobbying illegal, or at least pursued as influence peddling,
yet? sigh

Now that is a totally different topic - and a worthwhile one in my opinion.

FTR, I think the SawStop technology is a good solution to a problem, though
I do not think it is the only solution. For one, I don't like to trust
completely in technology and mechanisms to prevent accidents of this nature.
I'm much more in the camp that suggests personal responsibility and common
sense. That said, if I were in the market for a new cabinet saw, I would
consider a SawStop. Don't know if that would be the winner in my book, but
I'd consider it.

I don't want to see Gass succeed in his attempt to work the system in order
to market his product, but I also do not like to hear voices proclaim that
he should be forced to market it for some price that they consider
"appropriate". Rather - I believe in letting the market decide what is
"appropriate". Whether we like it or not, he's working within the system.
Yeah - he's working the system hard, but that's one of the risks of a
society that does not lock everything down. Forcing an inventor to give his
concept over to the greater good, or to limit his profits to a level that
some indiduals think should be appropriate by some arbitrary standards is
just a bit to Socalistic for my tastes.

--

-Mike-

On 11/21/2011 7:29 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Well, that's a bit of an extreem analogy, and I'm not sure it really applies
to this discussion. Your analogy references illegal activities, while Gass'
activities are completely within the law - regardless of how distasteful
they may be to some.

Therein lies the problem ... his methods may be "legal", but many are
arguably unethical in a capitalistic system, which must have a
moral/ethical component to survive (in the sense that he games the
system at others expense).

Not surprising in that Gass is also a member of the legal profession,
which writes the rules blurring the distinctions between what is
"legal", while completely disregarding whether they be moral, ethical,
or otherwise.

A lawyers business model is ultimately based on gaming the judicial
system, which they themselves have a disproportionate hand in authoring.

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

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:46120$4eca4825
:

Han wrote:


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

The fall of 69 - isn't that what happens after you start having kids?




--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote:
On 11/21/2011 7:29 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Well, that's a bit of an extreem analogy, and I'm not sure it really
applies to this discussion. Your analogy references illegal
activities, while Gass' activities are completely within the law -
regardless of how distasteful they may be to some.

Therein lies the problem ... his methods may be "legal", but many are
arguably unethical in a capitalistic system, which must have a
moral/ethical component to survive (in the sense that he games the
system at others expense).


I don't disagree with that or with anyone elses's objection to his moral
character. I do however disagree with anyone thinking they have the right
to suggest how profitable he or anyone else "should" be, and/or how
altruistic they need to be in order to be "moral" - while they themselves
don't give away their own worth.

--

-Mike-

"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

I'd be fine with the money in politics as long as we knew who was
paying, how much they were paying, and what safeguards were in place to
ensure that the politician in question stayed bought.

That would be an alternative to prohibiting corporations and perhaps also
unions from trying to influence elections.

I suggest you get the part of last Sunday's (11/20/11) 60 minutes "show"
where someone named Grover Nyquist proudly proclaimed how he had 290 or
so legislators by the short hairs to stay in line with their signed
pledge to never raise taxes or reduce benefits or credits. He also plain
refused to say who pays into his 501c3 (I think) non-profit so he can
campaign for everyone who toes the line, and against any and everyone who
doesn't. I admit I am paraphrasing, but challenge anyone to provide
evidence he didn't mean exactly that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

In my opinion, it should be illegal for anyone in government or
legislature to receive payments for what they do or did in "public
service", while in office or for 10 years thereafter. That includes
trading in non-public information in any way shape or form.
Exact amounts and dates of trades in securities need to be disclosed as
well.

I know I'm ****ing to windward ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 21 Nov 2011 23:00:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
ain.local:

I'd be fine with the money in politics as long as we knew who was
paying, how much they were paying, and what safeguards were in place to
ensure that the politician in question stayed bought.

That would be an alternative to prohibiting corporations and perhaps also
unions from trying to influence elections.

I suggest you get the part of last Sunday's (11/20/11) 60 minutes "show"
where someone named Grover Nyquist proudly proclaimed how he had 290 or
so legislators by the short hairs to stay in line with their signed
pledge to never raise taxes or reduce benefits or credits. He also plain
refused to say who pays into his 501c3 (I think) non-profit so he can
campaign for everyone who toes the line, and against any and everyone who
doesn't. I admit I am paraphrasing, but challenge anyone to provide
evidence he didn't mean exactly that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

He has them by the "short hairs" because of the "read my lips" debacle.
Rightfully so! Nothing illegal or immoral here.

In my opinion, it should be illegal for anyone in government or
legislature to receive payments for what they do or did in "public
service", while in office or for 10 years thereafter. That includes
trading in non-public information in any way shape or form.
Exact amounts and dates of trades in securities need to be disclosed as
well.

It's called "slavery".

I know I'm ****ing to windward ...

More like your pants, again.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:
On 11/21/2011 7:29 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Well, that's a bit of an extreem analogy, and I'm not sure it really
applies to this discussion. Your analogy references illegal
activities, while Gass' activities are completely within the law -
regardless of how distasteful they may be to some.

Therein lies the problem ... his methods may be "legal", but many are
arguably unethical in a capitalistic system, which must have a
moral/ethical component to survive (in the sense that he games the
system at others expense).


I don't disagree with that or with anyone elses's objection to his moral
character. I do however disagree with anyone thinking they have the right
to suggest how profitable he or anyone else "should" be, and/or how
altruistic they need to be in order to be "moral" - while they themselves
don't give away their own worth.


How many are suggesting he give it away, one? And how would you know whether
or not they give away their "worth". Think GPL and the Free Software
Foundation.

--
" Well you can't trust a special like the old time coppers
When you can't find your way 'ome"

Lobby Dosser wrote:



How many are suggesting he give it away, one? And how would you know
whether or not they give away their "worth". Think GPL and the Free
Software Foundation.

You'd have to read through the multitude of threads on this topic, but you'd
find significantly more than one person advocating that. How would I know
whether anyone gives their worth away - I really can't (nor do I really
care...), except by the comments that are so common about people's own worth
here.

--

-Mike-

If a company, person, or other type of "special interest" can spend, for
example, $40 or $50 grand on a lobbiest and another say $50 or $100k on
various congressional campaign contributions and later make millions from
legislation or rule-making that was influenced, well, that is just the
American way. The Supreme Court said so in the Citizens United vs Federal
Election Commission case of 2010.


--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

(Larry W) wrote in news:jaetdd$k3j$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

If a company, person, or other type of "special interest" can spend, for
example, $40 or $50 grand on a lobbiest and another say $50 or $100k on
various congressional campaign contributions and later make millions from
legislation or rule-making that was influenced, well, that is just the
American way. The Supreme Court said so in the Citizens United vs Federal
Election Commission case of 2010.

And I disagree. Politely, but emphatically. Please note that the SCOTUS
has reversed themselves at times. Whoever has the last word wins.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
says...

If a company, person, or other type of "special interest" can spend, for
example, $40 or $50 grand on a lobbiest and another say $50 or $100k on
various congressional campaign contributions and later make millions from
legislation or rule-making that was influenced, well, that is just the
American way. The Supreme Court said so in the Citizens United vs Federal
Election Commission case of 2010.

And the way for the individual citizen to deal with it is to find other
like-minded citizens and form a PAC.

On 11/20/2011 11:18 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 20 Nov 2011 20:32:16 GMT, Han wrote:

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?


I believe it was in the 70's the Federal Government mandated the 55mph
speed limit, and the state's had to use their own police to enforce the
law. Yes, the same Federal Government that forbids states to enforce
their immigration laws.
--
Jack
Got Change: big government ===== BIG GOVERNMENT!
http://jbstein.com

On 11/20/2011 5:16 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

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.

A fair price is what the market will bear. Once you let the government
dictate what you must buy, then I guess the government can dictate what
you must pay, and while you are at it, might as well let the pricks
dictate a fair wage for you as well.

Lord - can't let the guy make more than they think is appropriate!

Personally, I'll never buy anything that creepy lawyer sells. When his
lousy contraption fails, and someone looses a pinky, I hope to hell they
sue him for all his money, his wife and kids, even his pet snake.

--
Jack
Ninety-nine percent of all lawyers give the rest a bad name
http://jbstein.com

On 11/21/2011 6:00 PM, Han wrote:

In my opinion, it should be illegal for anyone in government or
legislature to receive payments for what they do or did in "public
service", while in office or for 10 years thereafter. That includes
trading in non-public information in any way shape or form.
Exact amounts and dates of trades in securities need to be disclosed as
well.

I know I'm ****ing to windward ...

Only because the blowhards in government are blowing against you.

It's legal for Congress to do exactly what Martha Stewart went to jail
for. Wonder who passed that law?

--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual ======= The Collective!
http://jbstein.com

Jack wrote:


Personally, I'll never buy anything that creepy lawyer sells. When his
lousy contraption fails, and someone looses a pinky, I hope to hell
they sue him for all his money, his wife and kids, even his pet snake.

That's what I was alluding to in a previous post. It's like trusting the
safety on a gun. Lots of Remmington Model 700 owners can tell you about the
folly of that. Not a doubt in my mind that sooner rather than later, too
much trust placed in this technology will result in a catastrophic event.

--

-Mike-

Jack wrote:


I believe it was in the 70's the Federal Government mandated the 55mph
speed limit, and the state's had to use their own police to enforce
the law. Yes, the same Federal Government that forbids states to
enforce their immigration laws.

Oh that's not right Jack... The Fed's don't mandate things - they simply
threaten to withhold Federal Highway Funds if the states don't comply. So -
from a philosophical standpoint - is extortion the same as a mandate?...

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:15:19 -0800, Lobby Dosser wrote:

All it requires is that we Throw The *******s Out and repeat until we
get what we want. Getting everyone to agree on what we want and that
your own ******* is not OK is the problem.

It's difficult for that to work if we can agree that both parties are
*******s. They've got the process sewed up such that it's really
difficult for a 3rd party to get on the ballot. If one does, the lack of
public financing for campaigns almost ensures that they won't get enough
exposure to attract non-aligned voters.

Somewhat distantly related to the topic at hand, I'm currently reading a
book titled "Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in
the Making of the Nation". Here's a link:

http://books.google.com/books/about/...Founders.html?
id=6SkDZ7ECnQUC

Essays about some people who made the "Founding Fathers" look like a
bunch of reactionary stuffed shirts (the "1%" of their times?) :-). Most
of whom I'd never heard of. The book can be a little dry at times as
each chapter is by a different historian, but I heartily recommend it.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

That's what I was alluding to in a previous post. It's like trusting the
safety on a gun. Lots of Remmington Model 700 owners can tell you about the
folly of that. Not a doubt in my mind that sooner rather than later, too
much trust placed in this technology will result in a catastrophic event.

While I was taught too well to ever trust the safety on a gun, I still want my
guns to have safeties. Likewise, if I were in the market for a table saw, I'd
be seriously considering a Sawstop. I'm not sure my wife would let me buy
anything else. Our neighbor had to have a finger re-attached.

That said, someone is going to get stupid and get hurt in spite of the
technology. -- Doug

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

That's what I was alluding to in a previous post. It's like trusting the
safety on a gun. Lots of Remmington Model 700 owners can tell you about
the
folly of that. Not a doubt in my mind that sooner rather than later, too
much trust placed in this technology will result in a catastrophic event.

While I was taught too well to ever trust the safety on a gun, I still
want my
guns to have safeties. Likewise, if I were in the market for a table saw,
I'd
be seriously considering a Sawstop. I'm not sure my wife would let me buy
anything else. Our neighbor had to have a finger re-attached.

That said, someone is going to get stupid and get hurt in spite of the
technology. -- Doug



People still use Forte as a news reader so safety cannot be too much of a
concern.

--

KKK

"Kris K. Kaput0" wrote:

People still use Forte as a news reader so safety cannot be too much of a
concern.

And the hazard with that is?

-- Doug

Jack wrote in :

On 11/21/2011 6:00 PM, Han wrote:

In my opinion, it should be illegal for anyone in government or
legislature to receive payments for what they do or did in "public
service", while in office or for 10 years thereafter. That includes
trading in non-public information in any way shape or form.
Exact amounts and dates of trades in securities need to be disclosed as
well.

I know I'm ****ing to windward ...

Only because the blowhards in government are blowing against you.

It's legal for Congress to do exactly what Martha Stewart went to jail
for. Wonder who passed that law?

Exactly.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Hi Mike,
I think you are right to some extent . . . This man should be able to
command ANY price he seeks, provided that is, that the rest of us have the
option to NOT pay it. That is not the case from what I have read on this
newsgroup. He wants to dictate the price, and also have his device made
mandatory on every machine made. This is how monopolies got such a bad rap,
and became illegal. Let the man decide who he will market to, and the
price, but the choice of whether or not someone buys his product should
remain at the discretion of the buyer, not the government or the
manufacturer.

wrote in message
...
Hi Mike,
I think you are right to some extent . . . This
man should be able to
command ANY price he seeks, provided that is,
that the rest of us have the
option to NOT pay it. That is not the case from
what I have read on this
newsgroup. He wants to dictate the price, and
also have his device made
mandatory on every machine made. This is how
monopolies got such a bad rap,
and became illegal. Let the man decide who he
will market to, and the
price, but the choice of whether or not someone
buys his product should
remain at the discretion of the buyer, not the
government or the
manufacturer.

Same thing with obamacare. The gov't cannot force
every living American
to send monthly payments to a private for profit
company. There is no
precedence. It is all in favor of the g-d ins.
co.!

wrote in message ...

Hi Mike,
I think you are right to some extent . . . This man should be able to
command ANY price he seeks, provided that is, that the rest of us have the
option to NOT pay it. That is not the case from what I have read on this
newsgroup. He wants to dictate the price, and also have his device made
mandatory on every machine made. This is how monopolies got such a bad
rap,
and became illegal. Let the man decide who he will market to, and the
price, but the choice of whether or not someone buys his product should
remain at the discretion of the buyer, not the government or the
manufacturer.



Bunch of nonsense!

You don't have to purchase a car with all those safety features, they have
forced on you, jacking the price to double what they used to be... Do you
even wear those seatbelt gadgets, the government has forced you to pay for,
or it that concept OK on your car and not your on your dangerous tools?

You have a choice on that one. You could walk or take the bus.


--

KKK

"Kris K. Kaput0" wrote:

Bunch of nonsense!

You don't have to purchase a car with all those safety features,
they have forced on you, jacking the price to double what they used
to be...
-----------------------------
Just keep paying those higher insurance premiums that were in effect
prior to the safety improvements you are bitching about.

Lew

In article , says...

wrote in message ...

Hi Mike,
I think you are right to some extent . . . This man should be able to
command ANY price he seeks, provided that is, that the rest of us have the
option to NOT pay it. That is not the case from what I have read on this
newsgroup. He wants to dictate the price, and also have his device made
mandatory on every machine made. This is how monopolies got such a bad
rap,
and became illegal. Let the man decide who he will market to, and the
price, but the choice of whether or not someone buys his product should
remain at the discretion of the buyer, not the government or the
manufacturer.



Bunch of nonsense!

You don't have to purchase a car with all those safety features, they have
forced on you, jacking the price to double what they used to be... Do you
even wear those seatbelt gadgets, the government has forced you to pay for,
or it that concept OK on your car and not your on your dangerous tools?

The airbag assholes are just as bad as Gass. Yeah, they crammed their
crap down our throats and now we have to wear seat belts to protect us
from their ****ing airbags.

You have a choice on that one. You could walk or take the bus.

I paid about half the rates I pay now but then the money has depreciated.

Years back they began posting rates for six months of coverage and it didn't
take more than a few years for the half year rate to catch up to the former
full year rate.

We could all take busses but they are more ecologically dirty than our own
vehicles, these days (based on a NY transit published figures).

The safety features you are bitching about their bitching have changed
things I saw as a kid... city street accidents with dead people's heads
stuck through holes in windshields and steering columns crushing people's
organs causing death. Who hears of car accidents in the city killing people
much anymore?

Good thing the governments didn't leave the choice up to the bitchers on
those safety issues.


--------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...
Just keep paying those higher insurance premiums that were in effect
prior to the safety improvements you are bitching about.

Lew


-------
"Kris K. Kaput0" wrote:

Bunch of nonsense!

You don't have to purchase a car with all those safety features, they have
forced on you, jacking the price to double what they used to be...
-----------------------------

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:08:26 -0500, "J. Clarke"
The airbag assholes are just as bad as Gass. Yeah, they crammed their
crap down our throats and now we have to wear seat belts to protect us
from their ****ing airbags.

You just can't stop playing the idiot can you? Anyone who shoots down
seatbelts or airbags for that matter doesn't have enough brain cells
left to formulate a considered opinion. Normally, your opinion
contains a considered amount of scientific comment. It appears physics
and the laws of motion have now been dispensed with in your diatribes.

Guess you've been bashing your head on the steering wheel too often.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:08:26 -0500, "J. Clarke"
The airbag assholes are just as bad as Gass. Yeah, they crammed their
crap down our throats and now we have to wear seat belts to protect us
from their ****ing airbags.

You just can't stop playing the idiot can you? Anyone who shoots down
seatbelts or airbags for that matter doesn't have enough brain cells
left to formulate a considered opinion. Normally, your opinion
contains a considered amount of scientific comment. It appears physics
and the laws of motion have now been dispensed with in your diatribes.

Guess you've been bashing your head on the steering wheel too often.

Gee, Dave, I thought that JC's comment was pretty funny myself, it does
sound like something a stand-up comic would get a good laugh out of.


--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

"Larry W" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:08:26 -0500, "J. Clarke"
The airbag assholes are just as bad as Gass. Yeah, they crammed their
crap down our throats and now we have to wear seat belts to protect us
from their ****ing airbags.

You just can't stop playing the idiot can you? Anyone who shoots down
seatbelts or airbags for that matter doesn't have enough brain cells
left to formulate a considered opinion. Normally, your opinion
contains a considered amount of scientific comment. It appears physics
and the laws of motion have now been dispensed with in your diatribes.

Guess you've been bashing your head on the steering wheel too often.

Gee, Dave, I thought that JC's comment was pretty funny myself, it does
sound like something a stand-up comic would get a good laugh out of.


--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org


I've always thought of seat belts and air bags as my means of hedging
against the stupidity of the "other' drivers.
I don't think "other" saw operators are going to have any effect on the
safety, or lack of, on "my" saw. ;-)

Max

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:56:28 +0000 (UTC),
Gee, Dave, I thought that JC's comment was pretty funny myself, it does
sound like something a stand-up comic would get a good laugh out of.

Maybe his comments were funny in some form of a sordid sense. But,
seatbelts are something I'd never joke about. They've saved my life
and I have the picture to prove it.

Doesn't matter what people want, there will always be somebody who will go
against it.

This holds true for posting comments as well.

Now let's not go agin' the go agin' post so we hear the babble from you know
who agin'

---------

"Dave" wrote in message ...
Maybe his comments were funny in some form of a sordid sense. But,
seatbelts are something I'd never joke about. They've saved my life
and I have the picture to prove it.