I am in the market for a table saw. This will be my first saw, and for that
matter my first stationary tool. My first project will be to build some
cabinets to clean up my shop space. In the future I intend to continue on
with my hobby of furniture making.
I am looking at this as my first saw, one that will get me through the first
5 or 6 years... long enough for me to decide if this is a life-long hobby.
I want a quality saw that will not frustrate me or be an un-necesarry danger
to me. I do not have the shop location wired for 220, and at this time I
don't intend to do it anytime soon. The saw will have to be somewhat mobile
as I have to share the 'shop' with a car during the cold Canadian winters...
I had initially decided on the General 185 Contractor Saw. I have read good
reviews about it, and it came recommended by a much more knowledgeable
friend. Recently I noticed the General 220 'Hybrid' Saw being offered.
Does anybody have any working experience with this saw? Does anybody
reccomend one over the other?
I have read various negative postings regarding the AMPs on the motor and
the 2HP claim, and was wondering what the opinion here was. My
understanding was the General uses a two pulley system which accounts for
the greater horsepower rating....
The reason for my shift in thought here is that (correct me if I'm wrong)
the 220 being in a cabinet should have less vibration and of course have
better dust collection. If the motor is indeed 2HP, then the 220 should be
a supperior saw? Even if the saw is slightly less than 2HP is it worth the
trade off?
Any help would be great.
Buster
"Buster" <[email protected]> wrote
> I want a quality saw that will not frustrate me or be an un-necesarry
> danger to me.
Buster might care to look at my web site - Circular Sawbench Safety - Buying
a Circular Sawbench.
Above all, I think I would try to establish how well the crown guard (hood,
Murricans) automatically lifts as work is fed to the saw, suspecting that
this could be the prime reason why people become frustrated and fail to use
this vital part of the machine.
Jeff G
--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
email : Username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
www.amgron.clara.net
Buster wrote:
> I am in the market for a table saw. This will be my first saw, and for that
> matter my first stationary tool. My first project will be to build some
> cabinets to clean up my shop space. In the future I intend to continue on
> with my hobby of furniture making.
>
> I am looking at this as my first saw, one that will get me through the first
> 5 or 6 years... long enough for me to decide if this is a life-long hobby.
> I want a quality saw that will not frustrate me or be an un-necesarry danger
> to me. I do not have the shop location wired for 220, and at this time I
> don't intend to do it anytime soon. The saw will have to be somewhat mobile
> as I have to share the 'shop' with a car during the cold Canadian winters...
>
> I had initially decided on the General 185 Contractor Saw. I have read good
> reviews about it, and it came recommended by a much more knowledgeable
> friend. Recently I noticed the General 220 'Hybrid' Saw being offered.
> Does anybody have any working experience with this saw? Does anybody
> reccomend one over the other?
>
> I have read various negative postings regarding the AMPs on the motor and
> the 2HP claim, and was wondering what the opinion here was. My
> understanding was the General uses a two pulley system which accounts for
> the greater horsepower rating....
>
> The reason for my shift in thought here is that (correct me if I'm wrong)
> the 220 being in a cabinet should have less vibration and of course have
> better dust collection. If the motor is indeed 2HP, then the 220 should be
> a supperior saw? Even if the saw is slightly less than 2HP is it worth the
> trade off?
>
I see a lot of people recommend Jet saws: Jet makes great table saws,
but when you are looking at a General, I cannot understand the reason
for such a recommendation. General tools are among the best on the
market. Their web site, though, is not good. The hybrid saw will
probably outlast you, and the two HP rating means it will have enough
power for anything almost any hobbyist will ever need. I don't know
what kind of fence it has, but look for some kind of Biesemeyer clone
for best results. The pulley system doesn't determine HP. It does
determine the transfer efficiency of what HP is produced.
Check out the Jet saws, of course, and check out Delta and whatever
else is available in Canada, but in the meantime, keep an eye on that
General. The odds are good you'll be very happy with it.
Buster,
I was in the exact same position as you were only 1 year ago. I aksed
questions, read informaiton and reread the same information. However, I
didn't have enough experience to use the information was receiving. I
eventually settled on the General 185. Why...because someone I knew
told me it was a good saw, I was able to get a good price and I was
under the impresion it was the best saw I could afford. I have only
built three projects, but I have not been disappointed yet.
I knew nothing, but putting it together by myself in a couple of hours.
I under estimated how important it was to take the time to do proper
set-up (I eyeballed most things), paid the price (bad cuts, burnt
edges) until I took the time to do proper set-up. I guess there really
is no teacher like experience. The manual won't help much with this
but there is lot's of documentaiton on the net. I used "The Accurate
Table Saw" from LV and it helped a great deal.
I have never used the 220 so I can't comment. But I do like my 185.
Forgive me if this information is below your current abilities. Sean
Buster,
I own the 185, and have used it for about a year now. As a newbie
woodworker, it is certainly my own limitations, not the saw's, "holding
me back" at this point. And it will be that way for a long time I
imagine, even as my skills grow. I can't think I'll "outgrow" this saw
in 6 years time.
I had a friend help me with setup. He owns a PM-66, and he was quite
impressed with the fit and substansiveness of the 185. And I don't
think you'll find a better stock miter gauge on ANY other contractor's
saw; cast iron, solid, and spring-loaded bearings in the "T" make for a
rock-solid fit in the track.
I did get the 52" rails with it. There was some hole-misalignment on
the front of the TS top where the front rail was to attach; I had to
simply enlarge two of the predrilled holes on the TS to get proper
alignment. Otherwise, the saw went together easily. The owner's
manual sucks. Not that you couldn't figure it out yourself, but if you
have any woodworker friends who have setup a saw before, try to lure
them over for an afternoon!
Regarding the General 220, while I haven't used one I'll just make two
points: it is certainly better in dust "retention" than the 185, but
you'll want a DC just the same; so don't go thinking that it'll make
any difference in your DC needs. If you do opt for it for other
reasons, get the "C" version with the General "T" fence - not the base
model w/ the aluminum fence. The General "T" is a good Bies clone
(some will disparage it because it doesn't have easily removable faces,
but you can build a carriage that rides over it / clamps on with all
the fancy t-track / holddowns you want...). I can't speak to better
vibration dampening on the 220 either; I have yet to put on the link
belt I bought for my 185; one of these days...
... again, a year ago (when I bought), here in the States, the GI 185
was definitely the best bang for the buck. Things might be different
for you up there.
Regards,
Chris
Hax Planx wrote:
> Jeff Gorman says...
>
> > Above all, I think I would try to establish how well the crown guard (hood,
> > Murricans) automatically lifts as work is fed to the saw, suspecting that
> > this could be the prime reason why people become frustrated and fail to use
> > this vital part of the machine.
> >
> > Jeff G
>
> I believe we call it a blade guard over here, your lordship. If you
> need to resort to provincial name-calling to get attention, you might at
> least have the courtesy to expand your vocabulary of American terms to
> equal your vocabulary of offensive slang. But I've heard that courtesy
> isn't what it used to be over there, something which you so aptly
> demonstrate.
Actually, what the Yurpeans use on table saw blades is properly called
a crown guard, both for its shape and for its action, which is far more
precise and efficient than the U.S./Canadian "blade guard".
Geeze, what an uncalled for ad hominem driveby. FYI, IMHO Jeff has
more courtesy and grace in his pinkie than most Murricans have
altogether, including me. A visit to his website and a google of his
posts on the wreck will demonstrate to any thinking person that he is
willing to share in a thoughtful and meaningful way his wealth of
experience, and if you don't get his sense of humor as expressed in his
OP above, then why not just leave it alone and stop giving Murricans a
bad name by bashing this particular gent.
Mutt
I thought I was speaking for myself; last time I checked, the slang
IMHO meant In my Humble Opinion......
While I'm at it, IMHO, (oh, sorry, speaking for myself) I don't find
the word "Murricans" the least bit offensive.
Balderstone might have gotten it right. You might want to check your
corn flakes daily.
Mutt.
Well, Pig, (does that make you a Murrican Pig? ;)) I didn't know that I
was supposed to be offended by "Murrican" either! Heck, I had to DAGS
- I had NO CLUE as to what it meant, and why Hax was so upset.
Apparently, you and I both need to study more the things that are
supposed to offend us (BIG wrap, be careful):
https://secure.customerservicecareers.com/wiki3/o/Offensive_terms_per_nationality_Offensive_terms_for_the_Spanish.asp#Offensive_terms_for_Americans_.28United_States.29
-Chris
p.s. Mutt, I agree w/ the entire content of your original reply to
Hax.
Pig wrote:
> I thought I was speaking for myself; last time I checked, the slang
> IMHO meant In my Humble Opinion......
>
> While I'm at it, IMHO, (oh, sorry, speaking for myself) I don't find
> the word "Murricans" the least bit offensive.
>
> Balderstone might have gotten it right. You might want to check your
> corn flakes daily.
>
> Mutt.
I'm a Canadian; this is the first time anyone has called me an
American. I suppose technically speaking everybody in North and South
America is an American. Heck, I could call myself a Monctonian, but
most of you don't know or care where Moncton (city) is. I could call
myself a New Brunswicker (Province). I call myself a Canadian when I'm
dealing with and international audience. I can't ever remember calling
myself a North American.
We all know what it usually means in a debate when we start to say
"technically speaking". It means our argument is flawed for 99.9% of
the population, but we can still say we are right.
To date, when I have heard a news report about America or an American,
my assumption has been the story is about The United States of America
or a citizen. I don't think I have been wrong yet. Perhaps I just
don't know I have been mistaken.
Rob Fargher wrote:
> Pig wrote:
>
> > While I'm at it, IMHO, (oh, sorry, speaking for myself) I don't find
> > the word "Murricans" the least bit offensive.
>
> To me, "Murricans" is nothing more than a phonetic spelling of the word
> "Americans" in an american accent. Being that I'm Canajun, it's more
> properly spelt "Murkin". :-)
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Rob
Y'all know what a merkin is?
HI Jerry, my intention was to just let this drop, but I wanted to
address your last comment. Not because I have an overwhelming desire
to be right, but to clarify.
I was not and am not offended and did not find it derogatory. I know
many Americans and I work with many Americans. I have no issue; in fact
have not noticed any difference between them and any other person I
have met. Sure, there are people that see a stereotypical American
around every corner. The same could be said about people seeing
stereotypical Canadians, eh.
My point was; it is simply a flawed response. It's kind of like the
"I'm rubber and you're glue..." response to an insult. "Oh
yea...Well you're an American too." Contrary to what is portrayed on
some US newscasts. I'm proud of my American neighbours. I don't
always understand the politics, but I don't have to.
------
Sean ( A Canadian who watches way to much TV and all of the good stuff
comes from the US)
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Jerry S.
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But, as much as you may not like to admit it, is technically true.
>
> It's "technically true" that a Blue Jay has no blue pigment in its
> feathers. Who gives a flying fuck?
>
IIRC Golden Eagles.
--
FF
Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> FWIW, I don't always understand our politics either - but then it
> would seem that (especially) politicians aren't always rational.
Oh, no. The politicians are rational. But their deviousness is so
convoluted, understanding is difficult, or at least requires the same
somewhat odd twists of thought they, and their handlers, use. But,
rationally, they want to get elected. Of course, that doesn't apply to
clowns like Ralph Nader, who want to keep others from getting elected.
Bruce Barnett wrote:
>
> Maybe, but if you visit another country, and someone asks where you
> are from, WHAT do you say?
>
When we were in France last year for 3 weeks, we said, "California."
:^)
It was also the logical answer from the point-of-view that most of our
time there was in the wine regions (intentionally), and it got the
conversation going (as much as it could w/ our broken French and their
broken English) in the viticultural / eonological direction.
-Chris
In article <bX3ue.1773789$6l.783892@pd7tw2no>,
Buster <[email protected]> wrote:
>I am in the market for a table saw. This will be my first saw, and for that
>matter my first stationary tool. My first project will be to build some
>cabinets to clean up my shop space. In the future I intend to continue on
>with my hobby of furniture making.
>
>I am looking at this as my first saw, one that will get me through the first
>5 or 6 years... long enough for me to decide if this is a life-long hobby.
>I want a quality saw that will not frustrate me or be an un-necesarry danger
>to me. I do not have the shop location wired for 220, and at this time I
>don't intend to do it anytime soon. The saw will have to be somewhat mobile
>as I have to share the 'shop' with a car during the cold Canadian winters...
>
>I had initially decided on the General 185 Contractor Saw. I have read good
>reviews about it, and it came recommended by a much more knowledgeable
>friend. Recently I noticed the General 220 'Hybrid' Saw being offered.
>Does anybody have any working experience with this saw? Does anybody
>reccomend one over the other?
>
>I have read various negative postings regarding the AMPs on the motor and
>the 2HP claim, and was wondering what the opinion here was. My
>understanding was the General uses a two pulley system which accounts for
>the greater horsepower rating....
>
>The reason for my shift in thought here is that (correct me if I'm wrong)
>the 220 being in a cabinet should have less vibration and of course have
>better dust collection. If the motor is indeed 2HP, then the 220 should be
>a supperior saw? Even if the saw is slightly less than 2HP is it worth the
>trade off?
>
>Any help would be great.
The Ryobi BT3100 is in incredible 'bang for the buck' bargain. It doesn't
take kindly to being 'beat up on', but with merely 'reasonable' care, it
will do a fine job.
Beyond that, you will _not_ go badly wrong with *any* of the major-brand
full-size "Contractor" saws:
General, (separate from "General International")
Grizzly,
DeWalt,
Delta,
Jet,
etc.
are all quality tools.
A 'benchtop', or a 'job-site' saw will give increasing amounts of frustration,
as you pass the 'beginner' level. You _can_ do quality work with one of those
saws, but you spend a lot more time "adjusting" the tool, vs one of the
'better' saws.
At _equivalent_ loading, there really isn't a whole lot of difference in
cutting between a good 'cabinet' saw, and a good 'contractor'. The big
difference is you _can_get_ bigger power capacity in the cabinet saw. *IF*
you need it. A distant second consideration is that cabinet saws tend to
be heavier / more massive than contractor saws. more mass is better -- the
stability is improved. They're somewhat easier to tune/tweak/adjust, and tend
to hold the settings longer than a contractor type -- as in 'lifetime' vs.
merely 'years'. :) And there _is_ the 'convenience factor' of better
dust-collection or at least "containment" (if you're not using an actual Dust
Collector).
The *best* advice: find a way to get 'hands on' with as many of the
'candidates' as you can. You'll discover "little" things that make a
significant difference _to_you_. Then buy accordingly.
In article <[email protected]>, "Jerry S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <FqLue.1785039$Xk.1085490@pd7tw3no>, Rob Fargher
>> <fargher@*N*O*S*P*A*M*.shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Being that I'm Canajun, it's more
>>> properly spelt "Murkin". :-)
>>
>
>Canadians are "Murkins", too. So are Argentinians. The continents are
>"America", not the country. We live in The United States ***OF*** America.
>We get a couple Canadian stations here, & it always cracks me up when they
>interview someone who says something derogatory about "Americans". YOU ARE
>AMERICAN, TOO.
I doubt very much that you'd find many (any?) Canadians or Argentinians who
would agree with you. :-)
I'd like to point out, also, that the official name of our neighbor
immediately to the south is, in English, the United States of Mexico. And to
the best of my knowledge, citizens of that nation refer to themselves as
"Mexicans".
United States of Mexico --> Mexicans.
United States of America --> Americans.
There used to be several others in South America as well, but the official
names have since changed. Here's what they used to be:
United States of Brazil --> Brazilians.
United States of Venezuela --> Venezuelans.
United States of Colombia --> Colombians.
To sum it up, you're just flat wrong. Citizens of Canada are Canadians;
citizens of the United States of Mexico are Mexicans; citizens of the United
States of America are Americans. All are _North_Americans. Similarly, citizens
of Argentina are Argentinians, and _South_Americans. But Canadians, Mexicans,
and Argentinians are not "Americans" by _their_own_ definition.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <[email protected]>, Hax
Planx <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff Gorman says...
>
> > Above all, I think I would try to establish how well the crown guard (hood,
> > Murricans) automatically lifts as work is fed to the saw, suspecting that
> > this could be the prime reason why people become frustrated and fail to use
> > this vital part of the machine.
> >
> > Jeff G
>
> I believe we call it a blade guard over here, your lordship. If you
> need to resort to provincial name-calling to get attention, you might at
> least have the courtesy to expand your vocabulary of American terms to
> equal your vocabulary of offensive slang. But I've heard that courtesy
> isn't what it used to be over there, something which you so aptly
> demonstrate.
Hey, Hax... Who pissed in your Corn Flakes this morning?
I'm just sayin'...
djb
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <FqLue.1785039$Xk.1085490@pd7tw3no>, Rob Fargher
<fargher@*N*O*S*P*A*M*.shaw.ca> wrote:
> Being that I'm Canajun, it's more
> properly spelt "Murkin". :-)
Nope... Don't you remember those famous books from the Trudeaupia years
"Canajun, Eh?" and "Murrican, Huh?"?
;-)
djb
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Many people who read and contribute to this group are citizens of Canada.
> Let's ask them: do you guys "consider [your]selves to be 'Americans'" or
> Canadians?
I'm a Canadian. I'm not an American, and have never played one on
television. Some of my best friends, OTOH, are Americans. I have a
couple of friends who are Chileans, and Peruvians. They are not
Americans, either.
This "we're all Americans" canard is so very old and tired. Let's put
it on an ice flow and wave goodbye.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>,
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> Y'all know what a merkin is?
Sure. It covers yer gherkin...
In article <[email protected]>, Jerry S.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> But, as much as you may not like to admit it, is technically true.
It's "technically true" that a Blue Jay has no blue pigment in its
feathers. Who gives a flying fuck?
Plonk.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, "Jerry S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <FqLue.1785039$Xk.1085490@pd7tw3no>, Rob Fargher
>> <fargher@*N*O*S*P*A*M*.shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Being that I'm Canajun, it's more
>>> properly spelt "Murkin". :-)
Just be careful not to spell it "Merkin". :-)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
There seems to be more and more people out there that think it's their
"duty" to find something to be offended by. When I find one of these, I make
it my "duty" to offend them. Keeps them happy.
"Jerry S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> As many people from the various nations throughout the New World consider
> themselves to be "Americans", some think the common usage of American to
> refer to only people from the United States should be avoided in
> international contexts where it might cause confusion. Some find the use
of
> American to refer to only the United States offensive, as tending to
> disregard the existence of other American nations. Many in Latin America
may
> consider it an insult if it is suggested that they are somehow less worthy
> of being called American than residents of the USA.
>
>
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Doug
> Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Many people who read and contribute to this group are citizens of Canada.
>> Let's ask them: do you guys "consider [your]selves to be 'Americans'" or
>> Canadians?
>
> I'm a Canadian. I'm not an American, and have never played one on
> television. Some of my best friends, OTOH, are Americans. I have a
> couple of friends who are Chileans, and Peruvians. They are not
> Americans, either.
Ah yes, the Canadian Nation Identity (tm): "We're not American, eh!" :-)
--
Cheers,
Rob
mrcomp_ca wrote:
> I'm a Canadian; this is the first time anyone has called me an
> American. I suppose technically speaking everybody in North and South
> America is an American.
Well, I live in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, North America. So I
can lay claim to being a North American. Usage has the nomen American to
refer to the inhabitants of the country below us, the Exited States of
America. <grinning, ducking and running>
I think of myself as being a Canadian. Not a North American and certainly
not an American.
--
Cheers,
Rob
Pig wrote:
> While I'm at it, IMHO, (oh, sorry, speaking for myself) I don't find
> the word "Murricans" the least bit offensive.
To me, "Murricans" is nothing more than a phonetic spelling of the word
"Americans" in an american accent. Being that I'm Canajun, it's more
properly spelt "Murkin". :-)
--
Cheers,
Rob
If you can locate one of the more recent issues of "Workbench"
magazine there was a review of these types of saws that I believe
included the General. I don't recall that it was a particularly
in-depth ariticle but at least it has some information.
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
Jeff Gorman says...
> Above all, I think I would try to establish how well the crown guard (hood,
> Murricans) automatically lifts as work is fed to the saw, suspecting that
> this could be the prime reason why people become frustrated and fail to use
> this vital part of the machine.
>
> Jeff G
I believe we call it a blade guard over here, your lordship. If you
need to resort to provincial name-calling to get attention, you might at
least have the courtesy to expand your vocabulary of American terms to
equal your vocabulary of offensive slang. But I've heard that courtesy
isn't what it used to be over there, something which you so aptly
demonstrate.
Pig says...
> Geeze, what an uncalled for ad hominem driveby. FYI, IMHO Jeff has
> more courtesy and grace in his pinkie than most Murricans have
> altogether, including me. A visit to his website and a google of his
> posts on the wreck will demonstrate to any thinking person that he is
> willing to share in a thoughtful and meaningful way his wealth of
> experience, and if you don't get his sense of humor as expressed in his
> OP above, then why not just leave it alone and stop giving Murricans a
> bad name by bashing this particular gent.
>
> Mutt
Speak for yourself. I fail to see how his corruption of the word does
anything for our good name, or his for that matter. We don't have a
vast lexicon of annoying slang for the British, but if I was to pick
through the sewer and find some, would you find that humorous? Maybe
Mr. Gorman has yet to be reminded that such comments aren't always
welcome. In that case his knowledgeable woodworking posts can only be
improved by the omission of the provincial jabs. If he was just doing a
little innocent trolling, then he got what he was looking for. You see,
it's all good.
Charlie Self says...
> Actually, what the Yurpeans use on table saw blades is properly called
> a crown guard, both for its shape and for its action, which is far more
> precise and efficient than the U.S./Canadian "blade guard".
That's funny. I always thought the word European had some humorous
phonetic possibilities, but I always restrained myself.
In article <[email protected]>, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>by and large, the visible ones tend to be non-typical
>(else why would anyone notice them?)
An excellent point that has application in many, many areas.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
"Buster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I had initially decided on the General 185 Contractor Saw. I have read
good
> reviews about it, and it came recommended by a much more knowledgeable
> friend. Recently I noticed the General 220 'Hybrid' Saw being offered.
Don't know what prices you've found on General tablesaws, but General's web
page has some specials going on.
http://www.general.ca/images/circulaire/an/P.2ANG.CAN.gif
[email protected] (Lawrence Wasserman) wrote in news:LEfue.10
[email protected]:
> If you can locate one of the more recent issues of "Workbench"
> magazine there was a review of these types of saws that I believe
> included the General. I don't recall that it was a particularly
> in-depth ariticle but at least it has some information.
>
Seemed a series of paid advertisements, and beneath the normal standards of
August Home.
Buster wrote:
> I am in the market for a table saw. This will be my first saw, and for that
> matter my first stationary tool. My first project will be to build some
> cabinets to clean up my shop space. In the future I intend to continue on
> with my hobby of furniture making.
I'd suggest the Delta Contractor's saw complete with a Unifence and the
wheeled dolly option, which I have found does as good a job as i need
none; however, you have products available in Canada that may be equally
as good or better.
A word of advice.
Any saw on the face of the earth that you drive under a Unifence will
get the job done.
The fence is the most important part.
Lew
> In article <FqLue.1785039$Xk.1085490@pd7tw3no>, Rob Fargher
> <fargher@*N*O*S*P*A*M*.shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Being that I'm Canajun, it's more
>> properly spelt "Murkin". :-)
>
Canadians are "Murkins", too. So are Argentinians. The continents are
"America", not the country. We live in The United States ***OF*** America.
We get a couple Canadian stations here, & it always cracks me up when they
interview someone who says something derogatory about "Americans". YOU ARE
AMERICAN, TOO.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Jerry S."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In article <FqLue.1785039$Xk.1085490@pd7tw3no>, Rob Fargher
>>> <fargher@*N*O*S*P*A*M*.shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Being that I'm Canajun, it's more
>>>> properly spelt "Murkin". :-)
>>>
>>
>>Canadians are "Murkins", too. So are Argentinians. ...>
> I doubt very much that you'd find many (any?) Canadians or Argentinians
> who
> would agree with you. :-)
>
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
As many people from the various nations throughout the New World consider
themselves to be "Americans", some think the common usage of American to
refer to only people from the United States should be avoided in
international contexts where it might cause confusion. Some find the use of
American to refer to only the United States offensive, as tending to
disregard the existence of other American nations. Many in Latin America may
consider it an insult if it is suggested that they are somehow less worthy
of being called American than residents of the USA.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Jerry S."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Many people who read and contribute to this group are citizens of Canada.
> Let's ask them: do you guys "consider [your]selves to be 'Americans'" or
> Canadians?
>
Doing a quick google, the very first HIT shows a Canadian on my side. Read
Greg's comments.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/thread/1895-1.html
> Yeah, right. Produce one. Find me a citizen of Mexico who gets pissed off
> when
> you call him a Mexican, and tells you he's an "American".
>
> I'll not hold my breath while I wait.\
Hit number 2. Read #77. "I'm 100% Mexican"... " I am an American, even if I
don't have papers. Why, everyone who comes through america from the north
(Canada) or the south (Mexico) are Americans too! why? because america is
not a country -- It's a continent."
(I hope the link works):
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:00UTyD66ZKcJ:www.petitionspot.com/petitions/mexicantbeontelevision+mexicans+are+americans+too&hl=en
I don't care if you disagree with my interpretation or not, but to call me
flat wrong is, well, flat wrong. If Mirriam Webster dictionary lists my
interpretation ahead of yours, I'm not "flat wrong".
"mrcomp_ca" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm a Canadian; this is the first time anyone has called me an
> American. I suppose technically speaking everybody in North and South
> America is an American. Heck, I could call myself a Monctonian, but
> most of you don't know or care where Moncton (city) is. I could call
> myself a New Brunswicker (Province). I call myself a Canadian when I'm
> dealing with and international audience. I can't ever remember calling
> myself a North American.
>
> We all know what it usually means in a debate when we start to say
> "technically speaking". It means our argument is flawed for 99.9% of
> the population, but we can still say we are right.
>
> To date, when I have heard a news report about America or an American,
> my assumption has been the story is about The United States of America
> or a citizen. I don't think I have been wrong yet. Perhaps I just
> don't know I have been mistaken.
>
Nobody's saying you're mistaken. :-) I'm not saying that when someone says
"American", that we should think "Oh, you mean 'an inhabitant of North or
South America'", I'm just saying that if a Canadian (or Mexican, or
Argentinian) says something derogatory about "Americans", then technically
(yes technically) he/she is insulting himself/herself. And I find that
funny. And that's not meant to be derogatory to Canadians (or Mexicans, or
Argentinians)
-------
Jerry (an "American" who enjoys visiting Canada, and watching channel 31
from Toronto)
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jerry S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Doing a quick google, the very first HIT shows a Canadian on my side.
>> Read
>> Greg's comments.
>
> Garbage. Of course there's going to be some individuals that agree with
> you,
Hey - he just said "name one". :-P
> but the majority of Canadians consider themselves exactly that, Canadian
> and
> they value their heritage as a Canadian society distinct from Americans.
> Would Americans call themselves Canadian?
If the "Americans" were from Canada they would.
The name of the continent of North
> American has absolutely nothing to do with country pride.
>
>
Pride had nothing to do with it. I'm just saying that, as the other fine
Canadian pointed out, TECHNICALLY, Canadians are Americans, too.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:240620051429452809%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Doug
> Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This "we're all Americans" canard is so very old and tired.>
But, as much as you may not like to admit it, is technically true.
"Jerry S." <[email protected]> writes:
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:240620051429452809%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Doug
>> Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> This "we're all Americans" canard is so very old and tired.>
>
> But, as much as you may not like to admit it, is technically true.
Maybe, but if you visit another country, and someone asks where you
are from, WHAT do you say?
"United States" - That's technically wrong.
"American" - That's technically wrong
And if you say "I'm from the United States of America" or "US of A"
you sound like a dork.
p.s. If you say "I'm from New York (or whatever)" - that's cheating.
A mathematician and an engineer were arguing over how to ...
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
>
>Any saw on the face of the earth that you drive under a Unifence will
>get the job done.
>
Maybe this is true because I know there are some pretty crappy saws on
the face of this planet...
>The fence is the most important part.
BOY DO I AGREE.....>
I love my Biesemeyer ... after over 10 years of use it has proven
your point time after time...
Bob Griffiths
In article <[email protected]>, "Jerry S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Jerry S."
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> In article <FqLue.1785039$Xk.1085490@pd7tw3no>, Rob Fargher
>>>> <fargher@*N*O*S*P*A*M*.shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Being that I'm Canajun, it's more
>>>>> properly spelt "Murkin". :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Canadians are "Murkins", too. So are Argentinians. ...>
>
>> I doubt very much that you'd find many (any?) Canadians or Argentinians
>> who
>> would agree with you. :-)
>>
>
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
ROTFLMAO!
Anybody can add anything to Wikipedia. It's not exactly an authoritative
source.
>As many people from the various nations throughout the New World consider
>themselves to be "Americans",
Many people who read and contribute to this group are citizens of Canada.
Let's ask them: do you guys "consider [your]selves to be 'Americans'" or
Canadians?
>some think the common usage of American to
>refer to only people from the United States should be avoided in
>international contexts where it might cause confusion. Some find the use of
>American to refer to only the United States offensive, as tending to
>disregard the existence of other American nations. Many in Latin America may
>consider it an insult if it is suggested that they are somehow less worthy
>of being called American than residents of the USA.
Yeah, right. Produce one. Find me a citizen of Mexico who gets pissed off when
you call him a Mexican, and tells you he's an "American".
I'll not hold my breath while I wait.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
"Buster" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:bX3ue.1773789$6l.783892@pd7tw2no:
>
> The reason for my shift in thought here is that (correct me if I'm
> wrong) the 220 being in a cabinet should have less vibration and of
> course have better dust collection. If the motor is indeed 2HP, then
> the 220 should be a supperior saw? Even if the saw is slightly less
> than 2HP is it worth the trade off?
>
I have the Jet "Hybrid" for some of the same reasons - shop wasn't wired
for 220V back then. It is now. The Jet and DeWalt claim 1 3/4HP - but seems
to me so many other factors would kick in before you noticed a difference
between 1,75 and 2HP.
Yeah - I think you could expect vibration to be less on this. Dust
collection should be better too. Nota Bene: I have an early Jet hybrid and
the dust collection is **awful**.
"Jerry S." <[email protected]> wrote
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> As many people from the various nations throughout the New World consider
> themselves to be "Americans", some think the common usage of American to
> refer to only people from the United States should be avoided in
> international contexts where it might cause confusion. Some find the use
> of
> American to refer to only the United States offensive, as tending to
> disregard the existence of other American nations. Many in Latin America
> may
> consider it an insult if it is suggested that they are somehow less worthy
> of being called American than residents of the USA.
>
>
Many folks in the world don't like the USA. And as such, get offended by
almost anything anerican. Maybe it is envy. Whatever. You just can't please
most people.
mrcomp_ca expostulated:
| HI Jerry, my intention was to just let this drop, but I wanted to
| address your last comment. Not because I have an overwhelming
| desire to be right, but to clarify.
Good comment. Communication does seem to go to hell when being right
becomes more important than being accurate....
| I was not and am not offended and did not find it derogatory. I know
| many Americans and I work with many Americans. I have no issue; in
| fact have not noticed any difference between them and any other
| person I have met. Sure, there are people that see a stereotypical
| American around every corner. The same could be said about people
| seeing stereotypical Canadians, eh.
Most people on both sides of the border (any border) aren't very
visible - and, by and large, the visible ones tend to be non-typical
(else why would anyone notice them?)
| I'm proud of my American neighbours. I don't
| always understand the politics, but I don't have to.
Works both ways. On a visit to France a while back I was asked a
couple of times if I was Canadian - and felt complimented (and was
still no less proud to be an American.)
FWIW, I don't always understand our politics either - but then it
would seem that (especially) politicians aren't always rational.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Ditto the Jet Contractor saw. I've gotten excellent mileage from mine.
I've moved up to a full blown cabinet saw but still have the Jet. Hate to
see the thing go!
"cm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Buster,
>
> The General sounds like a winner.
>
> I have had a Jet contractor saw for about five years now and have been
> very pleased with it. It has a great fence and plenty of power. We use the
> saw in our vintage trailer restoration business. I think I paid about
> $475.00 for it.
>
> Good luck,
>
> AZCRAIG
>
> www.arizonavintagetrailers.com
>
>
> "Buster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:bX3ue.1773789$6l.783892@pd7tw2no...
>>I am in the market for a table saw. This will be my first saw, and for
>>that matter my first stationary tool. My first project will be to build
>>some cabinets to clean up my shop space. In the future I intend to
>>continue on with my hobby of furniture making.
>>
>> I am looking at this as my first saw, one that will get me through the
>> first 5 or 6 years... long enough for me to decide if this is a life-long
>> hobby. I want a quality saw that will not frustrate me or be an
>> un-necesarry danger to me. I do not have the shop location wired for
>> 220, and at this time I don't intend to do it anytime soon. The saw will
>> have to be somewhat mobile as I have to share the 'shop' with a car
>> during the cold Canadian winters...
>>
>> I had initially decided on the General 185 Contractor Saw. I have read
>> good reviews about it, and it came recommended by a much more
>> knowledgeable friend. Recently I noticed the General 220 'Hybrid' Saw
>> being offered. Does anybody have any working experience with this saw?
>> Does anybody reccomend one over the other?
>>
>> I have read various negative postings regarding the AMPs on the motor and
>> the 2HP claim, and was wondering what the opinion here was. My
>> understanding was the General uses a two pulley system which accounts for
>> the greater horsepower rating....
>>
>> The reason for my shift in thought here is that (correct me if I'm wrong)
>> the 220 being in a cabinet should have less vibration and of course have
>> better dust collection. If the motor is indeed 2HP, then the 220 should
>> be a supperior saw? Even if the saw is slightly less than 2HP is it
>> worth the trade off?
>>
>> Any help would be great.
>>
>> Buster
>>
>
>
"Jerry S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Doing a quick google, the very first HIT shows a Canadian on my side. Read
> Greg's comments.
Garbage. Of course there's going to be some individuals that agree with you,
but the majority of Canadians consider themselves exactly that, Canadian and
they value their heritage as a Canadian society distinct from Americans.
Would Americans call themselves Canadian? The name of the continent of North
American has absolutely nothing to do with country pride.
Buster,
The General sounds like a winner.
I have had a Jet contractor saw for about five years now and have been very
pleased with it. It has a great fence and plenty of power. We use the saw in
our vintage trailer restoration business. I think I paid about $475.00 for
it.
Good luck,
AZCRAIG
www.arizonavintagetrailers.com
"Buster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bX3ue.1773789$6l.783892@pd7tw2no...
>I am in the market for a table saw. This will be my first saw, and for
>that matter my first stationary tool. My first project will be to build
>some cabinets to clean up my shop space. In the future I intend to
>continue on with my hobby of furniture making.
>
> I am looking at this as my first saw, one that will get me through the
> first 5 or 6 years... long enough for me to decide if this is a life-long
> hobby. I want a quality saw that will not frustrate me or be an
> un-necesarry danger to me. I do not have the shop location wired for 220,
> and at this time I don't intend to do it anytime soon. The saw will have
> to be somewhat mobile as I have to share the 'shop' with a car during the
> cold Canadian winters...
>
> I had initially decided on the General 185 Contractor Saw. I have read
> good reviews about it, and it came recommended by a much more
> knowledgeable friend. Recently I noticed the General 220 'Hybrid' Saw
> being offered. Does anybody have any working experience with this saw?
> Does anybody reccomend one over the other?
>
> I have read various negative postings regarding the AMPs on the motor and
> the 2HP claim, and was wondering what the opinion here was. My
> understanding was the General uses a two pulley system which accounts for
> the greater horsepower rating....
>
> The reason for my shift in thought here is that (correct me if I'm wrong)
> the 220 being in a cabinet should have less vibration and of course have
> better dust collection. If the motor is indeed 2HP, then the 220 should
> be a supperior saw? Even if the saw is slightly less than 2HP is it worth
> the trade off?
>
> Any help would be great.
>
> Buster
>
For the money it will be hard to beat the Grizzly G0444Z contractors saw. It
has an excellent fence. I got one with the extension and legs. I am VERY
satisfied with it.
"Bob G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> >Any saw on the face of the earth that you drive under a Unifence will
> >get the job done.
> >
>
> Maybe this is true because I know there are some pretty crappy saws on
> the face of this planet...
>
> >The fence is the most important part.
>
> BOY DO I AGREE.....>
>
> I love my Biesemeyer ... after over 10 years of use it has proven
> your point time after time...
>
> Bob Griffiths
>