No good wood topics so I posted this minor rant.

I needed a cheap TS for onsite construction on a single personal project. At Lowes I bought the lowest end Skill for $199. I knew I wasn't buying the best quality but it was almost a disposable purchase in a sense. I just needed it for a few months.

Honestly, disposable is generous. Yes I am used to a Saw Stop in my shop but this POS was nearly unusable from from the get go.

First noticed an annoying "nuance" that is a design flaw in my opinion but I am sure it is considered a safety feature. If the fence lock is not fully engaged in then sticks up and out at the front rail and won't let you align a board to the fence. On construction builds when accurate cuts are "nominal" I often mark a piece for width on the leading edge, lay it next to the fence up near a non-spinning blade and bump the fence over until I get the width set that I want, then lock down the fence.

Totally impossible with this fence lock.

However, turned out not to be a problem when the fence lock handle snapped off about the third time (literally) I used it.

I used a vice grip and clamp to lock down the fence after that.

Then I started to rip a 2x4 which was a bit of a task for this little machine so I moved slowly. However, as soon as I let up on the feed through pressure the piece suddenly shifted away from the fence. I thought I had some stressed wood or really lost my technique or had a bad fence alignment. However, after I had the same issue while ripping a 1/4 x 2 stop molding I figured out the "trunnion" is so weak and flimsy the the blade actually starts to flex toward the fence under the least amount of cutting stress. I tightened the slip collar at the back where it allows the mechanism to tilt for bevel and locked the blade bevel down as hard as possible and it can still felx at least a 1/4". It could flex a good 1/2" with factory settings.

Pretty much unusable design unless you feed so slow or you aren't worried about a snaking rip line.

I will toss this when the project is over. To trashed by paint spills and job site dust, dirt and scratches to return.

On 9/25/2013 7:06 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
No good wood topics so I posted this minor rant.

I needed a cheap TS for onsite construction on a single personal project. At Lowes I bought the lowest end Skill for $199. I knew I wasn't buying the best quality but it was almost a disposable purchase in a sense. I just needed it for a few months.

Honestly, disposable is generous. Yes I am used to a Saw Stop in my shop but this POS was nearly unusable from from the get go.

First noticed an annoying "nuance" that is a design flaw in my opinion but I am sure it is considered a safety feature. If the fence lock is not fully engaged in then sticks up and out at the front rail and won't let you align a board to the fence. On construction builds when accurate cuts are "nominal" I often mark a piece for width on the leading edge, lay it next to the fence up near a non-spinning blade and bump the fence over until I get the width set that I want, then lock down the fence.

Totally impossible with this fence lock.

However, turned out not to be a problem when the fence lock handle snapped off about the third time (literally) I used it.

I used a vice grip and clamp to lock down the fence after that.

Then I started to rip a 2x4 which was a bit of a task for this little machine so I moved slowly. However, as soon as I let up on the feed through pressure the piece suddenly shifted away from the fence. I thought I had some stressed wood or really lost my technique or had a bad fence alignment. However, after I had the same issue while ripping a 1/4 x 2 stop molding I figured out the "trunnion" is so weak and flimsy the the blade actually starts to flex toward the fence under the least amount of cutting stress. I tightened the slip collar at the back where it allows the mechanism to tilt for bevel and locked the blade bevel down as hard as possible and it can still felx at least a 1/4". It could flex a good 1/2" with factory settings.

Pretty much unusable design unless you feed so slow or you aren't worried about a snaking rip line.

I will toss this when the project is over. To trashed by paint spills and job site dust, dirt and scratches to return.

Too bad you didn't check Craigs list.. I see dewalts all the time for
sale. Reasonable too, probably about he same price you paid.


Sounds like a dangerous tool. Right the *******s that make it...
(BOSCH) and let them know how well the POC works, and holds up.

Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

--
Jeff

"SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
No good wood topics so I posted this minor rant.

I needed a cheap TS for onsite construction on a single personal project.
At Lowes I bought the lowest end Skill for $199. I knew I wasn't buying
the best quality but it was almost a disposable purchase in a sense. I
just needed it for a few months.

Honestly, disposable is generous. Yes I am used to a Saw Stop in my shop
but this POS was nearly unusable from from the get go.

First noticed an annoying "nuance" that is a design flaw in my opinion
but I am sure it is considered a safety feature. If the fence lock is not
fully engaged in then sticks up and out at the front rail and won't let
you align a board to the fence. On construction builds when accurate cuts
are "nominal" I often mark a piece for width on the leading edge, lay it
next to the fence up near a non-spinning blade and bump the fence over
until I get the width set that I want, then lock down the fence.

Totally impossible with this fence lock.

However, turned out not to be a problem when the fence lock handle
snapped off about the third time (literally) I used it.

I used a vice grip and clamp to lock down the fence after that.

Then I started to rip a 2x4 which was a bit of a task for this little
machine so I moved slowly. However, as soon as I let up on the feed
through pressure the piece suddenly shifted away from the fence. I
thought I had some stressed wood or really lost my technique or had a bad
fence alignment. However, after I had the same issue while ripping a 1/4
x 2 stop molding I figured out the "trunnion" is so weak and flimsy the
the blade actually starts to flex toward the fence under the least amount
of cutting stress. I tightened the slip collar at the back where it
allows the mechanism to tilt for bevel and locked the blade bevel down as
hard as possible and it can still felx at least a 1/4". It could flex a
good 1/2" with factory settings.

Pretty much unusable design unless you feed so slow or you aren't worried
about a snaking rip line.

I will toss this when the project is over. To trashed by paint spills and
job site dust, dirt and scratches to return.

If people don't return this crap they will assume their customer is
satisfied. I'd returned it.

On 9/25/2013 8:57 PM, Leon wrote:
"SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
No good wood topics so I posted this minor rant.

I needed a cheap TS for onsite construction on a single personal project.
At Lowes I bought the lowest end Skill for $199. I knew I wasn't buying
the best quality but it was almost a disposable purchase in a sense. I
just needed it for a few months.

Honestly, disposable is generous. Yes I am used to a Saw Stop in my shop
but this POS was nearly unusable from from the get go.

First noticed an annoying "nuance" that is a design flaw in my opinion
but I am sure it is considered a safety feature. If the fence lock is not
fully engaged in then sticks up and out at the front rail and won't let
you align a board to the fence. On construction builds when accurate cuts
are "nominal" I often mark a piece for width on the leading edge, lay it
next to the fence up near a non-spinning blade and bump the fence over
until I get the width set that I want, then lock down the fence.

Totally impossible with this fence lock.

However, turned out not to be a problem when the fence lock handle
snapped off about the third time (literally) I used it.

I used a vice grip and clamp to lock down the fence after that.

Then I started to rip a 2x4 which was a bit of a task for this little
machine so I moved slowly. However, as soon as I let up on the feed
through pressure the piece suddenly shifted away from the fence. I
thought I had some stressed wood or really lost my technique or had a bad
fence alignment. However, after I had the same issue while ripping a 1/4
x 2 stop molding I figured out the "trunnion" is so weak and flimsy the
the blade actually starts to flex toward the fence under the least amount
of cutting stress. I tightened the slip collar at the back where it
allows the mechanism to tilt for bevel and locked the blade bevel down as
hard as possible and it can still felx at least a 1/4". It could flex a
good 1/2" with factory settings.

Pretty much unusable design unless you feed so slow or you aren't worried
about a snaking rip line.

I will toss this when the project is over. To trashed by paint spills and
job site dust, dirt and scratches to return.

If people don't return this crap they will assume their customer is
satisfied. I'd returned it.

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:57:08 -0500, Leon wrote:

"SonomaProducts.com" wrote:

snip

I will toss this when the project is over. To trashed by paint spills and
job site dust, dirt and scratches to return.

If people don't return this crap they will assume their customer is
satisfied. I'd returned it.

Leon's right, I'd return it too.

If you buy cheap you get cheap. But according to your description
this was way worse than cheap -- this was total junk.

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

On 9/25/2013 8:55 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.


I suspect that with out getting your money back that the complaint will
fall on deaf ears.

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:43:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.

Right, But is will be just another tool on the pile and the customer
experience will not get back to anyone that matters.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:07:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.
Right, But is will be just another tool on the pile and the customer
experience will not get back to anyone that matters.

Doesn't that depend on how many get returned to the vendor? After a
certain return point, they have to do something ~ either fix something
in the manufacturing process, come out with a whole new edition of the
tool, or completely abandon that tool manufacture.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:43:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.
Depends what product, and the source. A LOT of even non-defective
merchandise goes through the "hammer" because it doesn't sell and is
too expensive to keep warehousing - and if it is a "store brand" it
does NOT go back to the manufacturer - particularly if it is Chinese
(or other foreign) sourced. You should see all the bycycles and other
seasonal goods that end up in the local scrapyard crusher from places
like Wallmart, Canadian Tire, or in the old days, KMart (before they
left Canada)
Defectives are documented and destroyed unless the manufacturer is
really concerned and wants samples to analyze.

Same thing happened with faulty automotive parts replaced under
warranty. Half the time the "road man" for the manufacturer didn't
even want to see the defective parts unless the dealer's warranty
numbers were out of line - then they would do monthly "audits" - and
you better have ALL of the claimed parts available for inspection.
They were then destroyed/disposed of under the auditor's supervision.
(to be sure some crook didn't claim them on another vehicle next
month)

On 9/25/2013 7:06 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
No good wood topics so I posted this minor rant.
....
I will toss this when the project is over. To trashed by paint spills and job site dust, dirt and scratches to return.



Thanks for the review. Nice to reaffirm money invested in a good saw is
not wasted. Sorry about your experience!

Bill

I use a 10" DeWalt...
It is a fairly good, lightweight, portable table saw.
I put the 8" Makita Table saw legs on it.
A sharp blade is most important.
Not thrashing it, is another good idea.
john

"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
...

No good wood topics so I posted this minor rant.

I needed a cheap TS for onsite construction on a single personal project. At
Lowes I bought the lowest end Skill for $199. I knew I wasn't buying the
best quality but it was almost a disposable purchase in a sense. I just
needed it for a few months.

Honestly, disposable is generous. Yes I am used to a Saw Stop in my shop but
this POS was nearly unusable from from the get go.

First noticed an annoying "nuance" that is a design flaw in my opinion but I
am sure it is considered a safety feature. If the fence lock is not fully
engaged in then sticks up and out at the front rail and won't let you align
a board to the fence. On construction builds when accurate cuts are
"nominal" I often mark a piece for width on the leading edge, lay it next to
the fence up near a non-spinning blade and bump the fence over until I get
the width set that I want, then lock down the fence.

Totally impossible with this fence lock.

However, turned out not to be a problem when the fence lock handle snapped
off about the third time (literally) I used it.

I used a vice grip and clamp to lock down the fence after that.

Then I started to rip a 2x4 which was a bit of a task for this little
machine so I moved slowly. However, as soon as I let up on the feed through
pressure the piece suddenly shifted away from the fence. I thought I had
some stressed wood or really lost my technique or had a bad fence alignment.
However, after I had the same issue while ripping a 1/4 x 2 stop molding I
figured out the "trunnion" is so weak and flimsy the the blade actually
starts to flex toward the fence under the least amount of cutting stress. I
tightened the slip collar at the back where it allows the mechanism to tilt
for bevel and locked the blade bevel down as hard as possible and it can
still felx at least a 1/4". It could flex a good 1/2" with factory settings.

Pretty much unusable design unless you feed so slow or you aren't worried
about a snaking rip line.

I will toss this when the project is over. To trashed by paint spills and
job site dust, dirt and scratches to return.

On 9/26/2013 5:07 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:43:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.

Right, But is will be just another tool on the pile and the customer
experience will not get back to anyone that matters.


Actually I think it will matter if you return it. As Dave mentioned the
store rarely eats the loss, it is credited back from the manufacturer.
If the store gets enough back they drop the product and the
manufacturer certainly sees that.

The return is not going to be a slap in the face to the manufacturer and
cause them to stop putting out crap but enough returns will tell them
what they need to do to prevent the returns in the first place.

On 9/26/2013 6:44 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:43:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.
Depends what product, and the source. A LOT of even non-defective
merchandise goes through the "hammer" because it doesn't sell and is
too expensive to keep warehousing - and if it is a "store brand" it
does NOT go back to the manufacturer - particularly if it is Chinese
(or other foreign) sourced. You should see all the bycycles and other
seasonal goods that end up in the local scrapyard crusher from places
like Wallmart, Canadian Tire, or in the old days, KMart (before they
left Canada)
Defectives are documented and destroyed unless the manufacturer is
really concerned and wants samples to analyze.

Same thing happened with faulty automotive parts replaced under
warranty. Half the time the "road man" for the manufacturer didn't
even want to see the defective parts unless the dealer's warranty
numbers were out of line - then they would do monthly "audits" - and
you better have ALL of the claimed parts available for inspection.
They were then destroyed/disposed of under the auditor's supervision.
(to be sure some crook didn't claim them on another vehicle next
month)



While I agree with both statements, and I kept my warranty parts in a
hot location next to our 8, 200 gallon compressors, this kept the
scrapping by the rep moving along and him not going anal on the
inspection, the big difference here is every one having to refund/credit
the complete price of the purchase. Warranty work is certainly as not
as big of a sting than the expense of shipping the product, getting paid
for the product, refunding the product and dealing with it from that
point.

Typically on the goods that do not go back to the manufacturer, those
that the retailer eats, are purchased at a significantly lower cost to
begin with. The manufacturer does not have to pay for return shipping
and the credits, the retailer does not have to worry about getting
credit and shipping. The retailer expects to eat a percentage of those
type products. They certainly pay attention to the products that they
have to issue refunds on as this is more costly in multiple ways than
simply scraping merchandise that never sold.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:06:57 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
wrote:

No good wood topics so I posted this minor rant.

I needed a cheap TS for onsite construction on a single personal project. At Lowes I bought the lowest end Skill for $199. I knew I wasn't buying the best quality but it was almost a disposable purchase in a sense. I just needed it for a few months.

Honestly, disposable is generous. Yes I am used to a Saw Stop in my shop but this POS was nearly unusable from from the get go.

First noticed an annoying "nuance" that is a design flaw in my opinion but I am sure it is considered a safety feature. If the fence lock is not fully engaged in then sticks up and out at the front rail and won't let you align a board to the fence. On construction builds when accurate cuts are "nominal" I often mark a piece for width on the leading edge, lay it next to the fence up near a non-spinning blade and bump the fence over until I get the width set that I want, then lock down the fence.

Totally impossible with this fence lock.

However, turned out not to be a problem when the fence lock handle snapped off about the third time (literally) I used it.

I used a vice grip and clamp to lock down the fence after that.

Then I started to rip a 2x4 which was a bit of a task for this little machine so I moved slowly. However, as soon as I let up on the feed through pressure the piece suddenly shifted away from the fence. I thought I had some stressed wood or really lost my technique or had a bad fence alignment. However, after I had the same issue while ripping a 1/4 x 2 stop molding I figured out the "trunnion" is so weak and flimsy the the blade actually starts to flex toward the fence under the least amount of cutting stress. I tightened the slip collar at the back where it allows the mechanism to tilt for bevel and locked the blade bevel down as hard as possible and it can still felx at least a 1/4". It could flex a good 1/2" with factory settings.

Pretty much unusable design unless you feed so slow or you aren't worried about a snaking rip line.

I will toss this when the project is over. To trashed by paint spills and job site dust, dirt and scratches to return

Find a "flooring contractor" at Lowe's and give it to him he can
finish it off.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:42:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/26/2013 6:44 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:43:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.
Depends what product, and the source. A LOT of even non-defective
merchandise goes through the "hammer" because it doesn't sell and is
too expensive to keep warehousing - and if it is a "store brand" it
does NOT go back to the manufacturer - particularly if it is Chinese
(or other foreign) sourced. You should see all the bycycles and other
seasonal goods that end up in the local scrapyard crusher from places
like Wallmart, Canadian Tire, or in the old days, KMart (before they
left Canada)
Defectives are documented and destroyed unless the manufacturer is
really concerned and wants samples to analyze.

Same thing happened with faulty automotive parts replaced under
warranty. Half the time the "road man" for the manufacturer didn't
even want to see the defective parts unless the dealer's warranty
numbers were out of line - then they would do monthly "audits" - and
you better have ALL of the claimed parts available for inspection.
They were then destroyed/disposed of under the auditor's supervision.
(to be sure some crook didn't claim them on another vehicle next
month)



While I agree with both statements, and I kept my warranty parts in a
hot location next to our 8, 200 gallon compressors, this kept the
scrapping by the rep moving along and him not going anal on the
inspection, the big difference here is every one having to refund/credit
the complete price of the purchase. Warranty work is certainly as not
as big of a sting than the expense of shipping the product, getting paid
for the product, refunding the product and dealing with it from that
point.

Typically on the goods that do not go back to the manufacturer, those
that the retailer eats, are purchased at a significantly lower cost to
begin with. The manufacturer does not have to pay for return shipping
and the credits, the retailer does not have to worry about getting
credit and shipping. The retailer expects to eat a percentage of those
type products. They certainly pay attention to the products that they
have to issue refunds on as this is more costly in multiple ways than
simply scraping merchandise that never sold.


Not really. It only FEELS like it costs more to refund at retail than
to scrap unsold merchandise. All it REALLY costs is what the retailer
paid for it unless it is a commission sales outlet. OK, there is a
small portion of the cost of paying the teller, who is paid if that
item sold or not - but in REAL dollars - all it costs to refund a sale
is the cost of the item - when compared to scrapping unsold
merchandise it is the same.

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:42:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/26/2013 6:44 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:43:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.
Depends what product, and the source. A LOT of even non-defective
merchandise goes through the "hammer" because it doesn't sell and is
too expensive to keep warehousing - and if it is a "store brand" it
does NOT go back to the manufacturer - particularly if it is Chinese
(or other foreign) sourced. You should see all the bycycles and other
seasonal goods that end up in the local scrapyard crusher from places
like Wallmart, Canadian Tire, or in the old days, KMart (before they
left Canada)
Defectives are documented and destroyed unless the manufacturer is
really concerned and wants samples to analyze.

Same thing happened with faulty automotive parts replaced under
warranty. Half the time the "road man" for the manufacturer didn't
even want to see the defective parts unless the dealer's warranty
numbers were out of line - then they would do monthly "audits" - and
you better have ALL of the claimed parts available for inspection.
They were then destroyed/disposed of under the auditor's supervision.
(to be sure some crook didn't claim them on another vehicle next
month)



While I agree with both statements, and I kept my warranty parts in a
hot location next to our 8, 200 gallon compressors, this kept the
scrapping by the rep moving along and him not going anal on the
inspection, the big difference here is every one having to refund/credit
the complete price of the purchase. Warranty work is certainly as not
as big of a sting than the expense of shipping the product, getting paid
for the product, refunding the product and dealing with it from that
point.

Typically on the goods that do not go back to the manufacturer, those
that the retailer eats, are purchased at a significantly lower cost to
begin with. The manufacturer does not have to pay for return shipping
and the credits, the retailer does not have to worry about getting
credit and shipping. The retailer expects to eat a percentage of those
type products. They certainly pay attention to the products that they
have to issue refunds on as this is more costly in multiple ways than
simply scraping merchandise that never sold.


Not really. It only FEELS like it costs more to refund at retail than
to scrap unsold merchandise. All it REALLY costs is what the retailer
paid for it unless it is a commission sales outlet. OK, there is a
small portion of the cost of paying the teller, who is paid if that
item sold or not - but in REAL dollars - all it costs to refund a sale
is the cost of the item - when compared to scrapping unsold
merchandise it is the same.

You are missing out on other costs. You loose earned revenue. You have
the added expense of having to deal with the returned product. Your
employees could be doing something productive like selling vs refunding.
Basically you are paying a wage to reverse a sale. If the customer does
not return the product you keep the money from the sale, the transaction
and effort is final. If the customer returns crap product you loose
credibility and trust with the customer.

It would be far better from a business standpoint to never sell the product
than to do so and get it back.
That is business 101

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:26:34 -0500, Leon wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:42:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/26/2013 6:44 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:43:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.
Depends what product, and the source. A LOT of even non-defective
merchandise goes through the "hammer" because it doesn't sell and is
too expensive to keep warehousing - and if it is a "store brand" it
does NOT go back to the manufacturer - particularly if it is Chinese
(or other foreign) sourced. You should see all the bycycles and other
seasonal goods that end up in the local scrapyard crusher from places
like Wallmart, Canadian Tire, or in the old days, KMart (before they
left Canada)
Defectives are documented and destroyed unless the manufacturer is
really concerned and wants samples to analyze.

Same thing happened with faulty automotive parts replaced under
warranty. Half the time the "road man" for the manufacturer didn't
even want to see the defective parts unless the dealer's warranty
numbers were out of line - then they would do monthly "audits" - and
you better have ALL of the claimed parts available for inspection.
They were then destroyed/disposed of under the auditor's supervision.
(to be sure some crook didn't claim them on another vehicle next
month)



While I agree with both statements, and I kept my warranty parts in a
hot location next to our 8, 200 gallon compressors, this kept the
scrapping by the rep moving along and him not going anal on the
inspection, the big difference here is every one having to refund/credit
the complete price of the purchase. Warranty work is certainly as not
as big of a sting than the expense of shipping the product, getting paid
for the product, refunding the product and dealing with it from that
point.

Typically on the goods that do not go back to the manufacturer, those
that the retailer eats, are purchased at a significantly lower cost to
begin with. The manufacturer does not have to pay for return shipping
and the credits, the retailer does not have to worry about getting
credit and shipping. The retailer expects to eat a percentage of those
type products. They certainly pay attention to the products that they
have to issue refunds on as this is more costly in multiple ways than
simply scraping merchandise that never sold.


Not really. It only FEELS like it costs more to refund at retail than
to scrap unsold merchandise. All it REALLY costs is what the retailer
paid for it unless it is a commission sales outlet. OK, there is a
small portion of the cost of paying the teller, who is paid if that
item sold or not - but in REAL dollars - all it costs to refund a sale
is the cost of the item - when compared to scrapping unsold
merchandise it is the same.

You are missing out on other costs. You loose earned revenue. You have
the added expense of having to deal with the returned product. Your
employees could be doing something productive like selling vs refunding.
Basically you are paying a wage to reverse a sale. If the customer does
not return the product you keep the money from the sale, the transaction
and effort is final. If the customer returns crap product you loose
credibility and trust with the customer.

It would be far better from a business standpoint to never sell the product
than to do so and get it back.
That is business 101
No arguement there - I just said in REAL dollars there is no
difference in cost - and the cost involved in refunding the bad
product could be saved 2 or 3 times over by never shelving the crap in
the first place.

Don't know why retailers insist on selling junk, and American
consumers continue to buy it up at a record pace.

On 9/27/2013 1:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:26:34 -0500, Leon wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:42:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/26/2013 6:44 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:43:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.
Depends what product, and the source. A LOT of even non-defective
merchandise goes through the "hammer" because it doesn't sell and is
too expensive to keep warehousing - and if it is a "store brand" it
does NOT go back to the manufacturer - particularly if it is Chinese
(or other foreign) sourced. You should see all the bycycles and other
seasonal goods that end up in the local scrapyard crusher from places
like Wallmart, Canadian Tire, or in the old days, KMart (before they
left Canada)
Defectives are documented and destroyed unless the manufacturer is
really concerned and wants samples to analyze.

Same thing happened with faulty automotive parts replaced under
warranty. Half the time the "road man" for the manufacturer didn't
even want to see the defective parts unless the dealer's warranty
numbers were out of line - then they would do monthly "audits" - and
you better have ALL of the claimed parts available for inspection.
They were then destroyed/disposed of under the auditor's supervision.
(to be sure some crook didn't claim them on another vehicle next
month)



While I agree with both statements, and I kept my warranty parts in a
hot location next to our 8, 200 gallon compressors, this kept the
scrapping by the rep moving along and him not going anal on the
inspection, the big difference here is every one having to refund/credit
the complete price of the purchase. Warranty work is certainly as not
as big of a sting than the expense of shipping the product, getting paid
for the product, refunding the product and dealing with it from that
point.

Typically on the goods that do not go back to the manufacturer, those
that the retailer eats, are purchased at a significantly lower cost to
begin with. The manufacturer does not have to pay for return shipping
and the credits, the retailer does not have to worry about getting
credit and shipping. The retailer expects to eat a percentage of those
type products. They certainly pay attention to the products that they
have to issue refunds on as this is more costly in multiple ways than
simply scraping merchandise that never sold.


Not really. It only FEELS like it costs more to refund at retail than
to scrap unsold merchandise. All it REALLY costs is what the retailer
paid for it unless it is a commission sales outlet. OK, there is a
small portion of the cost of paying the teller, who is paid if that
item sold or not - but in REAL dollars - all it costs to refund a sale
is the cost of the item - when compared to scrapping unsold
merchandise it is the same.

You are missing out on other costs. You loose earned revenue. You have
the added expense of having to deal with the returned product. Your
employees could be doing something productive like selling vs refunding.
Basically you are paying a wage to reverse a sale. If the customer does
not return the product you keep the money from the sale, the transaction
and effort is final. If the customer returns crap product you loose
credibility and trust with the customer.

It would be far better from a business standpoint to never sell the product
than to do so and get it back.
That is business 101
No arguement there - I just said in REAL dollars there is no
difference in cost - and the cost involved in refunding the bad
product could be saved 2 or 3 times over by never shelving the crap in
the first place.



Don't know why retailers insist on selling junk, and American
consumers continue to buy it up at a record pace.

LOL, they insist on selling junk because the American consumer buys it.

Oh, and if you can figure out that formula for determining what to stock
and what not to stock let me know, ;~) Computers are great for
controlling an inventory but you cannot replace gut instinct on what to
stock. I have not yet seen a perfect inventory of goods where
everything sells.

Most U.S. Americans these days don't have the most common of
knowledge's, common sense. They don't realize and therefore can not
appreciate the value in buying a quality product. I attribute a lot of
this to kids being brought up in a household where both parents working
and letting others and the schools instil into their children what
little they have to share when herding 30~40 kids at a time.

I think our economy would slow down for a while if one parent would stay
home with the kids. The kids would certainly turn out smarter and more
productive. Unfortunately our kids have to learn life on their own so
to speak. It is a small wonder why gangs are thriving.


Next speaker! ;~)

Most U.S. Americans these days don't have the most common of

knowledge's, common sense. They don't realize and therefore can not

appreciate the value in buying a quality product. I attribute a lot of

Next speaker! ;~)

From that statement I think you think you are way smarter than most people and I think you are wrong.

Most people are just as smart and aware as you, they just make different decisions than you would make. Somehow you think your decisions are undoubtedly correct and theirs are wrong; when in reality theirs are just different.

You can present all the logic you want for the correctness of your decisions but it doesn't make any case at all for why their different decision is not also correct, for them.

I fully understand the value of buying a quality product and I have common sense and I buy crappy products all the time. Yes, I do like to complain about just how crappy something is at times and yes I get surprised sometimes, like this crappy saw and find out it was too crappy to do what I wanted but that doesn't mean I don't have common sense.

For instance Festools are undoubtedly far superior to most standard brands but I will never likely buy one because I value my cash flow over getting 10 years vs 5 years of service for twice the price. I can get results that work for me from far less expensive devices now and in many cases I come out way ahead because I never use the tool enough to have justified the stupid high prices of some manufacturers.

Next speaker.

On 9/27/2013 4:20 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:

Most people are just as smart and aware as you, they just make different decisions than you would make.


Sum Ting Wong ... you must not own a TV, or drive on a freeway in the
increasingly urban environments, eh?

By definition, 50% of the people fall on the left side of bell curve as
far as smarts, and 50% of those are way dumber than that ... IOW, why
Springer, Kardashian, Honey BB, et al, and reality TV are so highly popular.

You can't fix stupid, but you can sure cater to it. Just ask any
politician, or Chinese tool/dog food purveyor.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 9/27/2013 7:19 PM, Swingman wrote:
Sum Ting Wong ... you must not own a TV, or drive on a freeway in the
increasingly urban environments, eh?

By definition, 50% of the people fall on the left side of bell curve as
far as smarts, and 50% of those are way dumber than that ... IOW, why
Springer, Kardashian, Honey BB, et al, and reality TV are so highly
popular.


Or an other way of saying it is "50% of the people are less that average
intelligence."

That ones has gotten me in a lot of trouble. However whatever anyone
thinks it is absolutely true.

If they question it that shows what side of average they are on

On 9/27/2013 4:20 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
From that statement I think you think you are way smarter than most people and I think you are wrong.

No, I think if I am smart enough to figure something out it should be
obtainable by most every one else. I have most often commented in years
past, If I can figure it out you should be able to figure it our. If
you can't figure it out, I may not be able to either.



Most people are just as smart and aware as you, they just make different decisions than you would make.

No doubt.

Somehow you think your decisions are undoubtedly correct and theirs
are wrong; when in reality theirs are just different.

That is entirely possible.


You can present all the logic you want for the correctness of your decisions but it doesn't make any case at all for why their different decision is not also correct, for them.


So are you saying that people that are not happy and or complain about
the decisions that they have made have in fact made the decision that is
correct for them???


I fully understand the value of buying a quality product and I have common sense and I buy crappy products all the time. Yes, I do like to complain about just how crappy something is at times and yes I get surprised sometimes, like this crappy saw and find out it was too crappy to do what I wanted but that doesn't mean I don't have common sense.

O crap, seriously, O crap. I had forgotten all about the beginning of
this thread, you buying the inexpensive TS. I in no way was pointing my
above comments at you at all. In addition I completely understand the
logic of buying a throw away product. It certainly makes sense to not
take an expensive tool to a wok site especially if it is not warranted.
For that matter I buy crappy products too and for the same reason.
Again, my comment was not at all directed at you so please accept my
apologies if I in any way came across the wrong way. That was certainly
not my intent.
Now, I would still return the TS, I personally consider $200 a bit much
to write off, so to speak in my case.


For instance Festools are undoubtedly far superior to most standard brands but I will never likely buy one because I value my cash flow over getting 10 years vs 5 years of service for twice the price. I can get results that work for me from far less expensive devices now and in many cases I come out way ahead because I never use the tool enough to have justified the stupid high prices of some manufacturers.

And as much as I like to talk about Festools, that brand was not even in
the scope of what I was thinking. I will say that I try to buy a brand
I have heard of vs. a no name brand.


Again, I absolutely was not trying to throw in an insult or belittle you
at all. My comments were more of a knee jerk reaction by the comment
that Claire made,

"
"Don't know why retailers insist on selling junk, and American
consumers continue to buy it up at a record pace."

And for the record I think a lot of the problems this society has is
directly connected with the time we as parents spend with our kids.
AAMOF my wife and I both worked when we had our first and only son.
Like those that continue to do the same, I saw no problem or
repercussions. Then one day I said enough is enough and quit my job and
retired. Our son was 7 at the time. I became a stay at home dad and
things were pretty tight for a few years. Our son ended up doing quite
well and perhaps that would have happened regardless if I had not
retired. Either way I know that our son benefited from one of us being
a stay at home parent. Unfortunately a lot of kids don't have that
option and lack the guidance that a loving parent offers over that of a
child care professional.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:20:18 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
wrote:


Most U.S. Americans these days don't have the most common of

knowledge's, common sense. They don't realize and therefore can not

appreciate the value in buying a quality product. I attribute a lot of

Next speaker! ;~)

From that statement I think you think you are way smarter than most people and I think you are wrong.

Most people are just as smart and aware as you, they just make different decisions than you would make. Somehow you think your decisions are undoubtedly correct and theirs are wrong; when in reality theirs are just different.

You can present all the logic you want for the correctness of your decisions but it doesn't make any case at all for why their different decision is not also correct, for them.

I fully understand the value of buying a quality product and I have common sense and I buy crappy products all the time. Yes, I do like to complain about just how crappy something is at times and yes I get surprised sometimes, like this crappy saw and find out it was too crappy to do what I wanted but that doesn't mean I don't have common sense.

For instance Festools are undoubtedly far superior to most standard brands but I will never likely buy one because I value my cash flow over getting 10 years vs 5 years of service for twice the price. I can get results that work for me from far less expensive devices now and in many cases I come out way ahead because I never use the tool enough to have justified the stupid high prices of some manufacturers.

Next speaker.
I have a "rule" that I generally follow. Never buy the cheapest or
the most expensive of anything (I intend to use for more than 5
minutes.)

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:39:50 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/27/2013 4:20 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
From that statement I think you think you are way smarter than most people and I think you are wrong.

No, I think if I am smart enough to figure something out it should be
obtainable by most every one else. I have most often commented in years
past, If I can figure it out you should be able to figure it our. If
you can't figure it out, I may not be able to either.



Most people are just as smart and aware as you, they just make different decisions than you would make.

No doubt.

Somehow you think your decisions are undoubtedly correct and theirs
are wrong; when in reality theirs are just different.

That is entirely possible.


You can present all the logic you want for the correctness of your decisions but it doesn't make any case at all for why their different decision is not also correct, for them.


So are you saying that people that are not happy and or complain about
the decisions that they have made have in fact made the decision that is
correct for them???


I fully understand the value of buying a quality product and I have common sense and I buy crappy products all the time. Yes, I do like to complain about just how crappy something is at times and yes I get surprised sometimes, like this crappy saw and find out it was too crappy to do what I wanted but that doesn't mean I don't have common sense.

O crap, seriously, O crap. I had forgotten all about the beginning of
this thread, you buying the inexpensive TS. I in no way was pointing my
above comments at you at all. In addition I completely understand the
logic of buying a throw away product. It certainly makes sense to not
take an expensive tool to a wok site especially if it is not warranted.
For that matter I buy crappy products too and for the same reason.
Again, my comment was not at all directed at you so please accept my
apologies if I in any way came across the wrong way. That was certainly
not my intent.
Now, I would still return the TS, I personally consider $200 a bit much
to write off, so to speak in my case.

I generally like to find/buy GOOD used tools. "Experienced" tools, as
I call them. They have worked for a few to many years - there is a
good chance they will continue to work for a while - and repair parts
are generally available. Buy new cheap crap and you have no idea if
they will work AT ALL - much-less how long - and generally repair
parts are virtually impossible to aquire, because they are basically
not worth fixing.


For instance Festools are undoubtedly far superior to most standard brands but I will never likely buy one because I value my cash flow over getting 10 years vs 5 years of service for twice the price. I can get results that work for me from far less expensive devices now and in many cases I come out way ahead because I never use the tool enough to have justified the stupid high prices of some manufacturers.

And as much as I like to talk about Festools, that brand was not even in
the scope of what I was thinking. I will say that I try to buy a brand
I have heard of vs. a no name brand.


Again, I absolutely was not trying to throw in an insult or belittle you
at all. My comments were more of a knee jerk reaction by the comment
that Claire made,

"
"Don't know why retailers insist on selling junk, and American
consumers continue to buy it up at a record pace."

And for the record I think a lot of the problems this society has is
directly connected with the time we as parents spend with our kids.
AAMOF my wife and I both worked when we had our first and only son.
Like those that continue to do the same, I saw no problem or
repercussions. Then one day I said enough is enough and quit my job and
retired. Our son was 7 at the time. I became a stay at home dad and
things were pretty tight for a few years. Our son ended up doing quite
well and perhaps that would have happened regardless if I had not
retired. Either way I know that our son benefited from one of us being
a stay at home parent. Unfortunately a lot of kids don't have that
option and lack the guidance that a loving parent offers over that of a
child care professional.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:37:05 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/27/2013 1:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:26:34 -0500, Leon wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:42:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/26/2013 6:44 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:43:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2013 9:15 PM, knuttle wrote:

I suspect it is still with in the warranty period I would take it back
so they will be aware of the poor quality. Even it they do not give
your money back you still have accomplished the purpose.

What purpose? Letting some clerk at Lowes know you did not like the
saw? Doubt it goes past there.

Dunno about Lowes, but where I work anything that is flawed and
returned by a customer goes back to the vendor. The store doesn't eat
it.
Depends what product, and the source. A LOT of even non-defective
merchandise goes through the "hammer" because it doesn't sell and is
too expensive to keep warehousing - and if it is a "store brand" it
does NOT go back to the manufacturer - particularly if it is Chinese
(or other foreign) sourced. You should see all the bycycles and other
seasonal goods that end up in the local scrapyard crusher from places
like Wallmart, Canadian Tire, or in the old days, KMart (before they
left Canada)
Defectives are documented and destroyed unless the manufacturer is
really concerned and wants samples to analyze.

Same thing happened with faulty automotive parts replaced under
warranty. Half the time the "road man" for the manufacturer didn't
even want to see the defective parts unless the dealer's warranty
numbers were out of line - then they would do monthly "audits" - and
you better have ALL of the claimed parts available for inspection.
They were then destroyed/disposed of under the auditor's supervision.
(to be sure some crook didn't claim them on another vehicle next
month)



While I agree with both statements, and I kept my warranty parts in a
hot location next to our 8, 200 gallon compressors, this kept the
scrapping by the rep moving along and him not going anal on the
inspection, the big difference here is every one having to refund/credit
the complete price of the purchase. Warranty work is certainly as not
as big of a sting than the expense of shipping the product, getting paid
for the product, refunding the product and dealing with it from that
point.

Typically on the goods that do not go back to the manufacturer, those
that the retailer eats, are purchased at a significantly lower cost to
begin with. The manufacturer does not have to pay for return shipping
and the credits, the retailer does not have to worry about getting
credit and shipping. The retailer expects to eat a percentage of those
type products. They certainly pay attention to the products that they
have to issue refunds on as this is more costly in multiple ways than
simply scraping merchandise that never sold.


Not really. It only FEELS like it costs more to refund at retail than
to scrap unsold merchandise. All it REALLY costs is what the retailer
paid for it unless it is a commission sales outlet. OK, there is a
small portion of the cost of paying the teller, who is paid if that
item sold or not - but in REAL dollars - all it costs to refund a sale
is the cost of the item - when compared to scrapping unsold
merchandise it is the same.

You are missing out on other costs. You loose earned revenue. You have
the added expense of having to deal with the returned product. Your
employees could be doing something productive like selling vs refunding.
Basically you are paying a wage to reverse a sale. If the customer does
not return the product you keep the money from the sale, the transaction
and effort is final. If the customer returns crap product you loose
credibility and trust with the customer.

It would be far better from a business standpoint to never sell the product
than to do so and get it back.
That is business 101
No arguement there - I just said in REAL dollars there is no
difference in cost - and the cost involved in refunding the bad
product could be saved 2 or 3 times over by never shelving the crap in
the first place.



Don't know why retailers insist on selling junk, and American
consumers continue to buy it up at a record pace.

LOL, they insist on selling junk because the American consumer buys it.

Exactly. He answered his own question.

Oh, and if you can figure out that formula for determining what to stock
and what not to stock let me know, ;~) Computers are great for
controlling an inventory but you cannot replace gut instinct on what to
stock. I have not yet seen a perfect inventory of goods where
everything sells.

It's not even that simple. You have to carry things that may not even
sell. If people don't think there is a very high chance that they'll
find everything they need, they'll drive right by your store and go
the competitor. You can't just sell 1" screws. You have to sell
1-1/4" too (an example of why I won't go to many mom-n-pop hardware
stores).

Most U.S. Americans these days don't have the most common of
knowledge's, common sense. They don't realize and therefore can not
appreciate the value in buying a quality product. I attribute a lot of
this to kids being brought up in a household where both parents working
and letting others and the schools instil into their children what
little they have to share when herding 30~40 kids at a time.

As Bill Bennett said after the last election, "The voter has spoken,
and now he must be punished." ...or perhaps, "Stupid is as stupid
does."

I think our economy would slow down for a while if one parent would stay
home with the kids. The kids would certainly turn out smarter and more
productive. Unfortunately our kids have to learn life on their own so
to speak. It is a small wonder why gangs are thriving.

I don't think the economy would slow down at all.

Next speaker! ;~)

Pass...

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:33:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 9/27/2013 7:19 PM, Swingman wrote:
Sum Ting Wong ... you must not own a TV, or drive on a freeway in the
increasingly urban environments, eh?

By definition, 50% of the people fall on the left side of bell curve as
far as smarts, and 50% of those are way dumber than that ... IOW, why
Springer, Kardashian, Honey BB, et al, and reality TV are so highly
popular.

+1

Or an other way of saying it is "50% of the people are less that average
intelligence."

....and the other half are suspect.

That ones has gotten me in a lot of trouble. However whatever anyone
thinks it is absolutely true.

If they question it that shows what side of average they are on

Well, there is a difference between "mean" and "average". ;-)

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:39:50 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
No, I think if I am smart enough to figure something out it should be
obtainable by most every one else. I have most often commented in years
past, If I can figure it out you should be able to figure it out. If
you can't figure it out, I may not be able to either.

Aren't you leaving major parts of the solving ability out? I think
people can be comparable in intelligence yet have different aptitudes.
Aptitudes that can enable someone to solve something while another
similarly intelligent person has greater difficulty.

Maybe one person has an aptitude for mathematics while another person
might have an aptitude for a science. Possibly one person might
possess the doggedness to keep working on a problem while someone else
with fairly equal intelligence might give up much more easily. There's
all sorts of variables that come into play that may not be related to
straight intelligence.

On 9/27/2013 11:20 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:33:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 9/27/2013 7:19 PM, Swingman wrote:
Sum Ting Wong ... you must not own a TV, or drive on a freeway in the
increasingly urban environments, eh?

By definition, 50% of the people fall on the left side of bell curve as
far as smarts, and 50% of those are way dumber than that ... IOW, why
Springer, Kardashian, Honey BB, et al, and reality TV are so highly
popular.

+1

Or an other way of saying it is "50% of the people are less that average
intelligence."

...and the other half are suspect.

That ones has gotten me in a lot of trouble. However whatever anyone
thinks it is absolutely true.

If they question it that shows what side of average they are on

Well, there is a difference between "mean" and "average". ;-)

On mega statistical populations of an open variable they become equal.

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:39:50 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
No, I think if I am smart enough to figure something out it should be
obtainable by most every one else. I have most often commented in years
past, If I can figure it out you should be able to figure it out. If
you can't figure it out, I may not be able to either.

Aren't you leaving major parts of the solving ability out? I think
people can be comparable in intelligence yet have different aptitudes.
Aptitudes that can enable someone to solve something while another
similarly intelligent person has greater difficulty.

Maybe one person has an aptitude for mathematics while another person
might have an aptitude for a science. Possibly one person might
possess the doggedness to keep working on a problem while someone else
with fairly equal intelligence might give up much more easily. There's
all sorts of variables that come into play that may not be related to
straight intelligence.

You have a point there, but I used to make that comment when making a
comparison to several that were hired to do the same job. They were hired,
because of their experience to do a relatively specialized job. I was
hired as a PT, do what ever needs to be done, kin in school. I was often
asked by our boss to help, those with the special skills, diagnose a
problem.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 23:20:51 -0400, krw wrote:

Well, there is a difference between "mean" and "average". ;-)

For a normal distribution curve, which applies to intelligence, mean and
average are the same. For a skewed curve, they are not.

Also mean, median, and mode are all equal for a normal curve.

--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:09:12 -0400, knuttle
wrote:

On 9/27/2013 11:20 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:33:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 9/27/2013 7:19 PM, Swingman wrote:
Sum Ting Wong ... you must not own a TV, or drive on a freeway in the
increasingly urban environments, eh?

By definition, 50% of the people fall on the left side of bell curve as
far as smarts, and 50% of those are way dumber than that ... IOW, why
Springer, Kardashian, Honey BB, et al, and reality TV are so highly
popular.

+1

Or an other way of saying it is "50% of the people are less that average
intelligence."

...and the other half are suspect.

That ones has gotten me in a lot of trouble. However whatever anyone
thinks it is absolutely true.

If they question it that shows what side of average they are on

Well, there is a difference between "mean" and "average". ;-)

On mega statistical populations of an open variable they become equal.

Only if the distribution is normal (and symmetrical).

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:27:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 23:20:51 -0400, krw wrote:

Well, there is a difference between "mean" and "average". ;-)

For a normal distribution curve, which applies to intelligence, mean and
average are the same. For a skewed curve, they are not.

I think you'll find it is. There are more people with an IQ of 120
than 80, and more 140 than 60.

Also mean, median, and mode are all equal for a normal curve.

Assuming a normal distribution.

On 9/28/2013 2:04 PM, wrote:
....

Only if the distribution is normal (and symmetrical).

A normal (Gaussian) is symmetrical by definition.

When is the arithmetic mean not the average, again?

--

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:27:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 23:20:51 -0400, krw wrote:

Well, there is a difference between "mean" and "average". ;-)

For a normal distribution curve, which applies to intelligence, mean and
average are the same. For a skewed curve, they are not.

I think you'll find it is. There are more people with an IQ of 120
than 80, and more 140 than 60.

Also mean, median, and mode are all equal for a normal curve.

Assuming a normal distribution.

Well, I'd presume that's what was meant by "normal curve" and it's true
for any symmetric unimodal distribution, not just normal (Gaussian).

--

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:21:34 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 9/28/2013 2:04 PM, wrote:
...

Only if the distribution is normal (and symmetrical).

A normal (Gaussian) is symmetrical by definition.

When is the arithmetic mean not the average, again?

Sorry, but I meant that not half the people are above average. Half
of a distribution is above MEDIAN, but not necessarily the mean.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:33:52 -0400, krw wrote:

For a normal distribution curve, which applies to intelligence, mean and
average are the same. For a skewed curve, they are not.

I think you'll find it is. There are more people with an IQ of 120 than
80, and more 140 than 60.

Sorry, you're mistaken. But don't believe me. I quote:

"Many distributions fall on a normal curve, especially when large samples
of data are considered. These normal distributions include height,
weight, IQ, SAT Scores, GRE and GMAT Scores, among many others. This is
important to understand because if a distribution is normal, there are
certain qualities that are consistent and help in quickly understanding
the scores within the distribution

The mean, median, and mode of a normal distribution are identical and
fall exactly in the center of the curve."

The quote is taken from:

http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/distributions.html

--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.

On 9/28/2013 4:36 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:21:34 -0500, wrote:

On 9/28/2013 2:04 PM, wrote:
...

Only if the distribution is normal (and symmetrical).

A normal (Gaussian) is symmetrical by definition.

When is the arithmetic mean not the average, again?

Sorry, but I meant that not half the people are above average. Half
of a distribution is above MEDIAN, but not necessarily the mean.

Garrison says all are above average...

All I know about indicates that population sample of IQs isn't
demonstrable as _not_ following a normal distribution; if that is so
then it is so that as well as can be determined there are as many above
the mean as below...

I just did a _very_ quick search and didn't find anything convincing
that the assumption isn't so; I did find the following abstract --

Does the Normal Curve Accurately Model the Distribution of Intelligence?
Lindsey R. Godwin, Kyle V. Smith

Like many human characteristics, intelligence is theorized to be
normally distributed. However, a vocal minority of researchers and
practitioners who study individuals with high intelligence have
claimed that there are more people in the upper echelons of
intelligence than would be expected if the normal curve accurately
modeled the distribution of intelligence scores.1,2,3,4

To verify this claim we carefully searched articles from the journal
Intelligence dated 1979 to 2012, completed an academic journal
search and reviewed national data sets for samples that permit this
claim to be tested. ... We reviewed the information provided from
these sources and determined that intelligence is indeed normally
distributed.

Of course, if the claim of the "vocal minority" were so, it would lead
to a skewed distribution to the right, not the left.

--

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:08:38 -0500, Leon wrote:
You have a point there, but I used to make that comment when making a
comparison to several that were hired to do the same job. They were hired,
because of their experience to do a relatively specialized job. I was
hired as a PT, do what ever needs to be done, kin in school. I was often
asked by our boss to help, those with the special skills, diagnose a
problem.

Which definitely confirms my point. You brought certain skills to the
problem that the specialists might have lacked.

Working as a technical writer, I frequently participated in various
projects. While the design experts had all the technical knowledge
that anyone could every want, their communications skills were
frequently lacking. It was my job to bridge what they were trying to
say and make it understandable to the managers and sales people.