New SawStop video

On 2/19/2012 10:25 AM, Leon wrote:
> Now this is funny, I don't care who you are.
>
> http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/45040/stephen-colbert-takes-the-sizzle-out-of-sawstop/?&lookup=auto&V18=&V19=&V20=&V21=&V22=&V23=&V24=&V25=&V26=&V53=&V54=&Taun_Per_Flag=true&utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_term=tablesaw-safety-controversy&utm_content=20120218-sawstop-spoof-stephen-colbert&utm_campaign=fine-woodworking-eletter
>

excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter and
as a spoof.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

It shows a dumb Canadian sawing his parts off and is restricted to other
countries.

-----------
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:25:11 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>Ironically, you're missing the fact that more people will be informed
>about this product and more awareness brought to the "issue" by this
>means than by anything preceding it.

I can go to the website, but the clip is unavailable now, at least for
me anyway. What did it show?

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>
>Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR are seldom
>related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be about on par. The
>forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car accident
>deaths, are not well related to helmet use.

Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.

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

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:56:43 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>Do you get Youtube outside the US?
>Or any of the other half-dozen sources that showed up on google?

Of course we get Youtube. As I stated, I'm sure if I looked around I
could find it, but I'm no longer inclined much to do so.

Jack wrote:

>
> How fucking dumb to you have to be to think the government is "all
> knowing" let alone let those words seep out of your mouth?

On this particular point, we are in violent agreement! The answer to your
question is "very freakin' dumb!"

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 2/19/2012 10:25 AM, Leon wrote:
> Now this is funny, I don't care who you are.
>
> http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/45040/stephen-colbert-takes-the-sizzle-out-of-sawstop/?&lookup=auto&V18=&V19=&V20=&V21=&V22=&V23=&V24=&V25=&V26=&V53=&V54=&Taun_Per_Flag=true&utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_term=tablesaw-safety-controversy&utm_content=20120218-sawstop-spoof-stephen-colbert&utm_campaign=fine-woodworking-eletter
>

excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter and
as a spoof.
===============================================================================================================
To bad it was presented as what it was supposed too be?
Let me guess. You lead the "War on humor.

On 02/21/2012 10:01 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>>
>> Correct. I drive a truck and never swivel my head, I use my mirrors.
>> My older brother was complaining about it getting hard to turn his
>> head when backing up... I said why would you turn your head, your
>> mirrors broke? He said he don't trust his mirrors. I said other
>> than running over a vampire, mine work fine... I also wore a helmet
>> when I rode a murdercycle, never had a problem swiveling my head,
>> just a problem with hot, and with Big Brother mandating it.
>>
>
> I don't constantly swivle my head either - that's what my mirrors are for.
> But - I do turn to lookinto my blind spots that my mirrors do not reflect,
> and any driver would admit that the mirrors are not a 100% indicator of
> what's around you, I also turn my head to look at intersections. Age is
> taking its toll - the damned head don't turn like it used to...
>

Turning my head hasn't worked so well for over 40 years after getting
c3/c4/c5 fused. I put those little bubble stick on mirrors on the
outside corner of the regular mirrors. You can see anything right up to
the point where your peripheral vision kicks in.

Wouldn't be without them, especially when towing the 5th wheel.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:30:31 -0600, Steve Barker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>>>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>>>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>>>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>>>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>>>
>>> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR are seldom
>>> related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be about on par. The
>>> forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car accident
>>> deaths, are not well related to helmet use.
>>
>> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
>> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
>> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
>> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.
>>
>
>_I_ personally don't 'constantly swivel' my head. And I don't think ANY
>driver "needs" to. What about a panel van? Would they just swivel
>their heads to check the bodies in the back or what? the head needs to
>turn no farther than the mirror. A helmet allows this just fine.

Mirrors are only good for a check. I turn my head to see peripherally
if not directly before making lane changes in town. Mirror work OK on
the freeway, but are not sufficient for town driving, backing out, or
driving into traffic. The need is there, whether or not you see it,
Steve.

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

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:25:16 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>Now this is funny, I don't care who you are.
>
>http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/45040/stephen-colbert-takes-the-sizzle-out-of-sawstop/?&lookup=auto&V18=&V19=&V20=&V21=&V22=&V23=&V24=&V25=&V26=&V53=&V54=&Taun_Per_Flag=true&utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_term=tablesaw-safety-controversy&utm_content=20120218-sawstop-spoof-stephen-colbert&utm_campaign=fine-woodworking-eletter

Bareback, YEAH! That was fun.

But greed, not altruism, is what drives the SS guy. Nobody who's an
altruist spends eons patenting every single possible angle.

--snip--
Convinced of the invention’s commercial potential, Gass and four
fellow patent attorneys from his law firm set out to patent-protect
the technology—the most difficult, labor intensive and mission
critical part of the endeavor. Without their combined legal expertise
and do-it-yourself entrepreneurial spirit it’s doubtful SawStop would
have ever reached the marketplace. “Very early on we did the
equivalent of a million dollars worth of patent work,” says Gass,
referring to himself and quartet of co-founders. “If we had to go out
and hire someone, it would have been hugely and prohibitively
expensive,” he concludes.

Read more:
http://failuremag.com/index.php/feature/article/give_this_saw_a_hand/#ixzz1msN0WQSz
--snip--

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

Larry Jaques wrote:

>
> True, even though that's illegal in most states now. When did we, as
> a society, decide that we had to be wired into everything at every
> moment?
.
Easy - when the common man started to think they were so damned important
that they had to be on top of everything at all times. As if they were so
almighty important or something. As if a minute of missing something was
going to end their life,. Oh well - I'm just bitchin' now...


>
> Most drivers today can't even steer, let alone drive a car or truck.
> And that's when they have all of their phones, CDs, radios, NAVs, and
> TVs turned -off-.

No kiddin'!

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Jack wrote:

>
> My first car was a truck, a 49 dodge pick up. I've been driving with
> mirrors forever, and they work great. If you ever drove a windowless
> van, they damn well better work. Mirrors today don't really have a
> blind spot, they have wide angle, which is what keeps large trucks
> from running your ass over.
>

I've been driving with my mirrors forever also. That's how I know that
mirrors both today and yesterday do indeed have bling spots. i won't bother
to argue that point. Save yourself the embarassment and simply check while
you are driving.


> I also turn my head to look at intersections.
>
> Good news, a crash helmet will not prevent you from swiveling your
> head, all the way around if you are a bird.

Never said it would or that it wouldn't.

>
> Age is
>> taking its toll - the damned head don't turn like it used to...
>
> Yeah, that's what my brother, whom also distrusts his mirrors, was
> whining about.

You foolishly misunderstand. I trust my mirrors completely. I back up only
with my mirrors, whether it's in my car, a truck, or with a trailer. I
simply realize the limitations of mirrors, and I acknowledge my age old
habits of also looking. To bad that's a difficult concept for you to grasp.

> He generally drives about 20 mph in a 40 mph zone, so
> he probably could text, read the newspaper, and swivel his head while
> getting some head, and no one would notice, other than some gov't cop
> looking for texters...

Sucks to be him, but that's not me so don't bother to introduce that kind of
red-herring into a conversation.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>>
>> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR
>> are seldom related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be
>> about on par. The forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in
>> real world car accident deaths, are not well related to helmet use.
>
> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.

What??? You don't have your own spotter when you go out for a drive?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:41:56 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Steve Barker wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2012 2:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/12 12:34 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter
>>>>> and as a spoof.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you know who Steven Colbert is, or his show?
>>>> The whole show is spoof and the laughter isn't canned, it's the live
>>>> studio audience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> no, i'm not familiar with him. But the laughter distracts from the
>>> seriousness of the thing. Like I said, it's a shame it was presented
>>> this way.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't think it was funny either. But probably 98% of the people
>>watching and laughing don't own a table saw. As far as the people
>>writing, I don't know whether they have a political agenda or not.
>
> My guess is yes, they do. It may have been a put up to get some
> attention. Write your congressman and tell him how we need this
> safety device.

Really? do we really need *more* nanny laws?

Jack wrote:

>
> Correct. I drive a truck and never swivel my head, I use my mirrors.
> My older brother was complaining about it getting hard to turn his
> head when backing up... I said why would you turn your head, your
> mirrors broke? He said he don't trust his mirrors. I said other
> than running over a vampire, mine work fine... I also wore a helmet
> when I rode a murdercycle, never had a problem swiveling my head,
> just a problem with hot, and with Big Brother mandating it.
>

I don't constantly swivle my head either - that's what my mirrors are for.
But - I do turn to lookinto my blind spots that my mirrors do not reflect,
and any driver would admit that the mirrors are not a 100% indicator of
what's around you, I also turn my head to look at intersections. Age is
taking its toll - the damned head don't turn like it used to...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Jack wrote:

>
> Yes, I have. Most are under $100, a good Bell, DOT approved is $100.
> I never heard of a crash helmet needing to be replaced frequently? Not
> sure where you buy an $800 crash helmet but even that ridiculous
> price is in line with SS tech and it could save your life, not just a
> finger or two. A woodworking bonus is if you get a face mask for
> your helmet, it would double as face mask for your lathe work.
>
> I think it's amusing some folks are OK with big brother mandating
> $1000 item on a table saw to save a few fingers, but balk at
> mandating a $100 crash helmet to save a bunch of lives.
>
> Along that same line, I think anyone getting a head injury riding in a
> car w/o a crash helmet should sue GM for not including crash helmets
> in every new car sold. The tech is there, GM knows about it, it is
> very affordable, unlike SS tech, so why are they not sued, same as
> Ryobi?

Although I realize that you are reaching to an extreem in order to prove
your point Jack, I'm going to chime in on the basics of what you post above.
To be sure - a good helmet can indeed be obtained for $100 or less, and
requires no regular replacement other than impact which "may" compromise its
integrity. Your point on big brother mandating a $1000 item (though I'm not
sure that is really the actual cost...) is well enough taken, in the spirit
of the point. You did however forget one particular point... What about the
claim that "it costs us all...". You know - the socialistic cry that
somehow what you do - that I don't like - can be regulated because "it costs
all of us..."

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Get another ISP. Everybody else can see it.

----------
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:28:52 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>But at one point you were. Which is why I wondered why you didn't just
>google in the same amount of time it took to post on here asking, "What
>did it show?"

You're worse that a dog with a bone. I did Google it initially and
kept getting the same message essentially saying the feed was not
available outside the United States. All, I've been able to view so
far is some still images.

In fact, I've Googled it more extensively now and I'm still getting
the same message. I'm starting to think that my ISP or Rogers who
supplies the feed to my ISP is blocking it system wide.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:39:23 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>do you guys not have google? :-p
>http://www.hulu.com/watch/329024/the-colbert-report-people-who-are-destroying-america-sawstop

It's not a problem of finding the website or the show, it's playing it
from outside the US, just as I guessed.

Message displayed this time:
We're sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within
the United States. For more information on Hulu's international
availability, click here.

I'm sure I could find it online somewhere, but I have a decent idea of
what the clip was about from the still images I saw.

On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.

Moot point ... most "daily drivers" these days seem to have a cell phone
stuck in one ear, making it impossible to do much head swiveling.

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

On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>>
>> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR are seldom
>> related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be about on par. The
>> forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car accident
>> deaths, are not well related to helmet use.
>
> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.
>
> --
> The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
> is to fill the world with fools.
> -- Herbert Spencer

_I_ personally don't 'constantly swivel' my head. And I don't think ANY
driver "needs" to. What about a panel van? Would they just swivel
their heads to check the bodies in the back or what? the head needs to
turn no farther than the mirror. A helmet allows this just fine.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 2/19/2012 4:30 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:09:33 -0800, "Kerry Montgomery"
>> Dave, Curious, just tried again and the link still works for me.
>
> When I go to the website and click on the clip it states.
>
> "Unvailable from your location". Possibly some type of copy write
> protection, Canadian obscenity laws or something else similarly
> ridiculous. Not a big thing I guess.

Try this

http://e.taunton.com/a/hBPP21BAri9kwB8f$sGAt7J8Q.Ari9kwQO/sawstop-34

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> I didn't think it was funny either. But probably 98% of the people
>> watching and laughing don't own a table saw. As far as the people
>> writing, I don't know whether they have a political agenda or not.
>
> My guess is yes, they do. It may have been a put up to get some
> attention. Write your congressman and tell him how we need this
> safety device.

Won't do any good - Congress is not in the loop.

The decision rests entirely on the whim of unelected bureaucrats.

On 2/21/2012 9:41 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>>
>> How fucking dumb to you have to be to think the government is "all
>> knowing" let alone let those words seep out of your mouth?
>
> On this particular point, we are in violent agreement! The answer to your
> question is "very freakin' dumb!"
>

He is a miserable guy, he moans and groans and never has much good to
say about anything. I plonked him, it has been a long time since I have
read anything that he has to say that is of any value.

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:25:11 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>Ironically, you're missing the fact that more people will be informed
>>about this product and more awareness brought to the "issue" by this
>>means than by anything preceding it.
>
> I can go to the website, but the clip is unavailable now, at least for
> me anyway. What did it show?

Dave,
Curious, just tried again and the link still works for me.
Kerry

"Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Now this is funny, I don't care who you are.
>
> http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/45040/stephen-colbert-takes-the-sizzle-out-of-sawstop/?&lookup=auto&V18=&V19=&V20=&V21=&V22=&V23=&V24=&V25=&V26=&V53=&V54=&Taun_Per_Flag=true&utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_term=tablesaw-safety-controversy&utm_content=20120218-sawstop-spoof-stephen-colbert&utm_campaign=fine-woodworking-eletter

Leon,
Thank you for that!
Kerry

Doug Winterburn wrote:

>
> Turning my head hasn't worked so well for over 40 years after getting
> c3/c4/c5 fused. I put those little bubble stick on mirrors on the
> outside corner of the regular mirrors. You can see anything right up
> to the point where your peripheral vision kicks in.
>
> Wouldn't be without them, especially when towing the 5th wheel.

Yup - have used them. Very helpful. Though - and it may be psychological -
I just feel like I have to look...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:25:11 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>Ironically, you're missing the fact that more people will be informed
>about this product and more awareness brought to the "issue" by this
>means than by anything preceding it.

I can go to the website, but the clip is unavailable now, at least for
me anyway. What did it show?

On 2/19/2012 3:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:41:56 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Steve Barker wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2012 2:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/12 12:34 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter
>>>>> and as a spoof.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you know who Steven Colbert is, or his show?
>>>> The whole show is spoof and the laughter isn't canned, it's the live
>>>> studio audience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> no, i'm not familiar with him. But the laughter distracts from the
>>> seriousness of the thing. Like I said, it's a shame it was presented
>>> this way.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't think it was funny either. But probably 98% of the people
>> watching and laughing don't own a table saw. As far as the people
>> writing, I don't know whether they have a political agenda or not.
>
> My guess is yes, they do. It may have been a put up to get some
> attention. Write your congressman and tell him how we need this
> safety device.


LMMFAO!! right! More gubmint control. just what we need.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Jack wrote:

>
> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
> affect their all knowing niceness.

Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR are seldom
related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be about on par. The
forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car accident
deaths, are not well related to helmet use.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:34:02 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>It was a spoof on either SS tech or ignorant dumb ass red necks that
>would rather cut off a finger than have some gov't dick head tell them
>what to do. It wasn't all that funny, more dumb than anything, I don't
>care who you are.

I have to wonder if it was a paid advertisement. One way to get your
product in front of the masses eh?

-MIKE- wrote:
> On 2/21/12 9:35 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>>
>> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR
>> are seldom related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be
>> about on par. The forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in
>> real world car accident deaths, are not well related to helmet use.
>>
>
> That thing that flew over your head? His point. :-p

Yeah - maybe... I seem to be getting shorter every year!

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:34:11 -0600, Steve Barker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2/19/2012 10:25 AM, Leon wrote:
>> Now this is funny, I don't care who you are.
>>
>> http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/45040/stephen-colbert-takes-the-sizzle-out-of-sawstop/?&lookup=auto&V18=&V19=&V20=&V21=&V22=&V23=&V24=&V25=&V26=&V53=&V54=&Taun_Per_Flag=true&utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_term=tablesaw-safety-controversy&utm_content=20120218-sawstop-spoof-stephen-colbert&utm_campaign=fine-woodworking-eletter
>>
>
>excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter and
>as a spoof.


It was still publicity though. You can't buy that kind of exposure.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:09:33 -0800, "Kerry Montgomery"
>Dave, Curious, just tried again and the link still works for me.

When I go to the website and click on the clip it states.

"Unvailable from your location". Possibly some type of copy write
protection, Canadian obscenity laws or something else similarly
ridiculous. Not a big thing I guess.

On 2/20/2012 2:34 PM, Jack wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 5:30 PM, Dave wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:09:33 -0800, "Kerry Montgomery"
>>> Dave, Curious, just tried again and the link still works for me.
>>
>> When I go to the website and click on the clip it states.
>>
>> "Unvailable from your location". Possibly some type of copy write
>> protection, Canadian obscenity laws or something else similarly
>> ridiculous. Not a big thing I guess.
>
> Not a big deal if you want gov't dick heads to tell you what you can and
> can't watch.
>
> It was a spoof on either SS tech or ignorant dumb ass red necks that
> would rather cut off a finger than have some gov't dick head tell them
> what to do. It wasn't all that funny, more dumb than anything, I don't
> care who you are.
>

Oh yeah, It was funny. ;~)

On Feb 19, 6:25=A0am, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> Now this is funny, I don't care who you are.
>
> http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/45040/stephen-colbert-takes-the-s...

That was great-thanks for sharing!!!!!

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:28:52 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>But at one point you were. Which is why I wondered why you didn't just
>google in the same amount of time it took to post on here asking, "What
>did it show?"

You're worse that a dog with a bone. I did Google it initially and
kept getting the same message essentially saying the feed was not
available outside the United States. All, I've been able to view so
far is some still images.

In fact, I've Googled it more extensively now and I'm still getting
the same message. I'm starting to think that my ISP or Rogers who
supplies the feed to my ISP is blocking it system wide.

Video was pulled or restricted from my area!

Somebody was offended.

-----------
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Now this is funny, I don't care who you are.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/45040/stephen-colbert-takes-the-sizzle-out-of-sawstop/?&lookup=auto&V18=&V19=&V20=&V21=&V22=&V23=&V24=&V25=&V26=&V53=&V54=&Taun_Per_Flag=true&utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_term=tablesaw-safety-controversy&utm_content=20120218-sawstop-spoof-stephen-colbert&utm_campaign=fine-woodworking-eletter

On 2/21/2012 9:07 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:30:31 -0600, Steve Barker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>>>>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>>>>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>>>>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>>>>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>>>>
>>>> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR are seldom
>>>> related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be about on par. The
>>>> forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car accident
>>>> deaths, are not well related to helmet use.
>>>
>>> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
>>> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
>>> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
>>> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.
>>>
>>
>> _I_ personally don't 'constantly swivel' my head. And I don't think ANY
>> driver "needs" to. What about a panel van? Would they just swivel
>> their heads to check the bodies in the back or what? the head needs to
>> turn no farther than the mirror. A helmet allows this just fine.
>
> Mirrors are only good for a check. I turn my head to see peripherally
> if not directly before making lane changes in town. Mirror work OK on
> the freeway, but are not sufficient for town driving, backing out, or
> driving into traffic. The need is there, whether or not you see it,
> Steve.
>
> --
> The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
> is to fill the world with fools.
> -- Herbert Spencer

obviously you are an incompetent driver and have never driven a panel
van or truck. Mirrors are all that should be necessary.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 2/19/12 12:34 PM, Steve Barker wrote:

> excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter
> and as a spoof.
>

Do you know who Steven Colbert is, or his show?
The whole show is spoof and the laughter isn't canned, it's the live
studio audience.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Steve Barker wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 2:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 2/19/12 12:34 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>>
>>> excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter
>>> and as a spoof.
>>>
>>
>> Do you know who Steven Colbert is, or his show?
>> The whole show is spoof and the laughter isn't canned, it's the live
>> studio audience.
>>
>>
>
> no, i'm not familiar with him. But the laughter distracts from the
> seriousness of the thing. Like I said, it's a shame it was presented
> this way.
>

I didn't think it was funny either. But probably 98% of the people
watching and laughing don't own a table saw. As far as the people
writing, I don't know whether they have a political agenda or not.

On 2/19/2012 2:31 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
...

> no, i'm not familiar with him. But the laughter distracts from the
> seriousness of the thing. Like I said, it's a shame it was presented
> this way.

Well, if you were expecting a serious report from that source, you'll
have better odds in converting the Pope. It just ain't a'gonna' happen;
not what he's about.

--

On 2/19/12 2:31 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 2:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 2/19/12 12:34 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>>
>>> excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter
>>> and as a spoof.
>>>
>>
>> Do you know who Steven Colbert is, or his show?
>> The whole show is spoof and the laughter isn't canned, it's the live
>> studio audience.
>>
>>
>
> no, i'm not familiar with him. But the laughter distracts from the
> seriousness of the thing. Like I said, it's a shame it was presented
> this way.
>

It's the only way he presents anything.
The laughter is the point. Google: satire.

Ironically, you're missing the fact that more people will be informed
about this product and more awareness brought to the "issue" by this
means than by anything preceding it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/19/12 3:38 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:25:11 -0600, -MIKE-<[email protected]>
>> Ironically, you're missing the fact that more people will be informed
>> about this product and more awareness brought to the "issue" by this
>> means than by anything preceding it.
>
> I can go to the website, but the clip is unavailable now, at least for
> me anyway. What did it show?

do you guys not have google? :-p

http://www.hulu.com/watch/329024/the-colbert-report-people-who-are-destroying-america-sawstop


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/19/12 8:48 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:39:23 -0600, -MIKE-<[email protected]>
>> do you guys not have google? :-p
>> http://www.hulu.com/watch/329024/the-colbert-report-people-who-are-destroying-america-sawstop
>
> It's not a problem of finding the website or the show, it's playing it
> from outside the US, just as I guessed.
>
> Message displayed this time:
> We're sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within
> the United States. For more information on Hulu's international
> availability, click here.
>
> I'm sure I could find it online somewhere, but I have a decent idea of
> what the clip was about from the still images I saw.

Do you get Youtube outside the US?
Or any of the other half-dozen sources that showed up on google?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

I think this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTI-QsTAuTw&feature=related

and the others on the same page do more to promote woodworking safety.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

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

On 2/19/12 9:06 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:56:43 -0600, -MIKE-<[email protected]>
>> Do you get Youtube outside the US?
>> Or any of the other half-dozen sources that showed up on google?
>
> Of course we get Youtube. As I stated, I'm sure if I looked around I
> could find it, but I'm no longer inclined much to do so.

But at one point you were. Which is why I wondered why you didn't just
google in the same amount of time it took to post on here asking, "What
did it show?"


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/19/2012 5:30 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:09:33 -0800, "Kerry Montgomery"
>> Dave, Curious, just tried again and the link still works for me.
>
> When I go to the website and click on the clip it states.
>
> "Unvailable from your location". Possibly some type of copy write
> protection, Canadian obscenity laws or something else similarly
> ridiculous. Not a big thing I guess.

Not a big deal if you want gov't dick heads to tell you what you can and
can't watch.

It was a spoof on either SS tech or ignorant dumb ass red necks that
would rather cut off a finger than have some gov't dick head tell them
what to do. It wasn't all that funny, more dumb than anything, I don't
care who you are.

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

On 2/20/2012 6:27 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:34:02 -0500, Jack<[email protected]> wrote:

>> It was a spoof on either SS tech or ignorant dumb ass red necks that
>> would rather cut off a finger than have some gov't dick head tell them
>> what to do. It wasn't all that funny, more dumb than anything, I don't
>> care who you are.

> I have to wonder if it was a paid advertisement. One way to get your
> product in front of the masses eh?

Possible, scum sucking lawyers like Gass will stop at nothing to make
themselves rich. Fine woodworking sent the video to everyone on their
mailing list, so money was flowing I'd bet.

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

On 2/20/2012 4:06 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 2/20/2012 2:34 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 2/19/2012 5:30 PM, Dave wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:09:33 -0800, "Kerry Montgomery"
>>>> Dave, Curious, just tried again and the link still works for me.
>>>
>>> When I go to the website and click on the clip it states.
>>>
>>> "Unvailable from your location". Possibly some type of copy write
>>> protection, Canadian obscenity laws or something else similarly
>>> ridiculous. Not a big thing I guess.
>>
>> Not a big deal if you want gov't dick heads to tell you what you can and
>> can't watch.
>>
>> It was a spoof on either SS tech or ignorant dumb ass red necks that
>> would rather cut off a finger than have some gov't dick head tell them
>> what to do. It wasn't all that funny, more dumb than anything, I don't
>> care who you are.

> Oh yeah, It was funny. ;~)

The funny part of the video was Gass trying to say he actually gives a
damn about your fingers. Well, I guess that was pretty funny. Also
Bob Adler of consumer products safety commission was pretty freaking
funny when he imagined the government being "all knowing and extremely
comforting and nice".

Well, that wasn't so funny. I wanted to either puke or punch the dumb
ass in the nose, more like both.

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

On 2/19/2012 5:32 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski"<[email protected]> wrote in message

>> My guess is yes, they do. It may have been a put up to get some
>> attention. Write your congressman and tell him how we need this
>> safety device.
>
> Really? do we really need *more* nanny laws?

What, you don't want the "all knowing and extremely comforting and nice"
big government telling you what you have to buy, wanted or not?

I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000 fingers
wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to affect their
all knowing niceness.

--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ======> Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com

On 2/19/2012 8:03 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> I didn't think it was funny either. But probably 98% of the people
>>> watching and laughing don't own a table saw. As far as the people
>>> writing, I don't know whether they have a political agenda or not.
>>
>> My guess is yes, they do. It may have been a put up to get some
>> attention. Write your congressman and tell him how we need this
>> safety device.
>
> Won't do any good - Congress is not in the loop.
>
> The decision rests entirely on the whim of unelected bureaucrats.

You mean assholes like Bob Adler head of the Consumers Product Safety
Commission that imagines how nice it would be if the "all knowing and
extremely comforting and nice" big government took care of everyone?

How fucking dumb to you have to be to think the government is "all
knowing" let alone let those words seep out of your mouth?

--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ======> Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com

On 2/21/12 9:35 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>
> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR are seldom
> related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be about on par. The
> forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car accident
> deaths, are not well related to helmet use.
>

That thing that flew over your head? His point. :-p


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/21/2012 10:35 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>> affect their all knowing niceness.

> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR are seldom
> related to helmet protection,

Yeah, that's my point. Helmets seldom cause deaths, frequently prevent
them, that's why they wear them.

and in real life, would be about on par.

In real life, far more lives would be saved if Big Brother required
everyone in a car wear a crash helmet than would be saved requiring
every TS had saw stop tech, and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

The
> forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car accident
> deaths, are not well related to helmet use.

Real world car accidents result in 40,000 deaths per year, and who knows
how many head injuries costing billions a year in damage. If you think
wearing a helmet wouldn't save a ton of lives, and greatly reduce the
risk of injury, you would be wrong.

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

On 2/21/2012 10:41 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Jack wrote:

>> How fucking dumb to you have to be to think the government is "all
>> knowing" let alone let those words seep out of your mouth?
>
> On this particular point, we are in violent agreement! The answer to your
> question is "very freakin' dumb!"

Well, he is probably one of the guys deciding for you that you can't buy
a saw w/o SS tech.

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

On 2/21/2012 12:36 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jack wrote:

> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.

NASCAR drivers do turn their heads, so do murdercycle drivers. The rate
of accidents would not change much, but the rate of deaths and injuries
would go WAY down.

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

On 2/21/2012 1:30 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jack wrote:

>> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
>> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
>> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
>> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.
>>
>> --
>> The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
>> is to fill the world with fools.
>> -- Herbert Spencer
>
> _I_ personally don't 'constantly swivel' my head. And I don't think ANY
> driver "needs" to. What about a panel van? Would they just swivel their
> heads to check the bodies in the back or what? the head needs to turn no
> farther than the mirror. A helmet allows this just fine.

Correct. I drive a truck and never swivel my head, I use my mirrors.
My older brother was complaining about it getting hard to turn his head
when backing up... I said why would you turn your head, your mirrors
broke? He said he don't trust his mirrors. I said other than running
over a vampire, mine work fine... I also wore a helmet when I rode a
murdercycle, never had a problem swiveling my head, just a problem with
hot, and with Big Brother mandating it.

I doubt Larry ever wore a helmet, or he is just making shit up to be
argumentative.

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

On 2/21/2012 12:47 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
>> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
>> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
>> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.
>
> Moot point ... most "daily drivers" these days seem to have a cell phone
> stuck in one ear, making it impossible to do much head swiveling.

A lot now have the cell on their lap so the cops can't see them texting,
which some gov't's have made illegal. One of the states making it
illegal supposedly have watched the accident rate increase due to
drivers trying to text while concealing the illegal behavior.
Maybe they should make it more illegal to try to conceal texting and
driving.

Myself, I started to read the newspaper while driving, figuring if it
ain't illegal, it must be OK.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/21/2012 10:03 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

>> Moot point ... most "daily drivers" these days seem to have a cell phone
>> stuck in one ear, making it impossible to do much head swiveling.
>
> True, even though that's illegal in most states now.

How many states are there now. Google says 10 states have banned cell
phones. Obummer says 57 states not counting Alaska and Hawaii, so 59,
and 10 ain't near _most_ unless there are only 19 left?

Thankfully, reading the newspaper while driving is A OK, not to mention
getting some head or eating a Mac and fries.

When did we, as
> a society, decide that we had to be wired into everything at every
> moment?

Better question is when did we, as a society, become so freaking dumb we
need the "all knowing" government to keep it's thumb up our ass so we
don't slip off the earth?

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

On 2/21/2012 10:07 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:30:31 -0600, Steve Barker

> Mirrors are only good for a check.

Yep, just for a check to make SURE you ain't gunna run into someone
making a lane change.

I turn my head to see peripherally if not directly before making lane
changes in town.

That sounds dangerous. Mirrors require less fooling around, but,
without a gov't law making it illegal to needlessly swivel your head, I
guess you can endanger everyone in front of you. The good news is, you
can swivel your head all you want with a helmet on.

Mirror work OK on
> the freeway, but are not sufficient for town driving, backing out, or
> driving into traffic. The need is there, whether or not you see it,
> Steve.

I don't see it either, but a helmet will not interfere with a head
swivel, even an unneeded one.

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

On 2/21/2012 9:59 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 9:07 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:30:31 -0600, Steve Barker
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>>>>>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>>>>>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>>>>>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>>>>>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR are seldom
>>>>> related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be about on par. The
>>>>> forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car accident
>>>>> deaths, are not well related to helmet use.
>>>>
>>>> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
>>>> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
>>>> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
>>>> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _I_ personally don't 'constantly swivel' my head. And I don't think ANY
>>> driver "needs" to. What about a panel van? Would they just swivel
>>> their heads to check the bodies in the back or what? the head needs to
>>> turn no farther than the mirror. A helmet allows this just fine.
>>
>> Mirrors are only good for a check. I turn my head to see peripherally
>> if not directly before making lane changes in town. Mirror work OK on
>> the freeway, but are not sufficient for town driving, backing out, or
>> driving into traffic. The need is there, whether or not you see it,
>> Steve.
>>
>> --
>> The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
>> is to fill the world with fools.
>> -- Herbert Spencer
>
> obviously you are an incompetent driver and have never driven a panel van or
> truck. Mirrors are all that should be necessary.

Being something other than a jerk isn't really your strong suit, is it?

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 2/22/2012 12:01 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>>
>> Correct. I drive a truck and never swivel my head, I use my mirrors.
>> My older brother was complaining about it getting hard to turn his
>> head when backing up... I said why would you turn your head, your
>> mirrors broke? He said he don't trust his mirrors. I said other
>> than running over a vampire, mine work fine... I also wore a helmet
>> when I rode a murdercycle, never had a problem swiveling my head,
>> just a problem with hot, and with Big Brother mandating it.
>>
>
> I don't constantly swivle my head either - that's what my mirrors are for.
> But - I do turn to lookinto my blind spots that my mirrors do not reflect,
> and any driver would admit that the mirrors are not a 100% indicator of
> what's around you,

My first car was a truck, a 49 dodge pick up. I've been driving with
mirrors forever, and they work great. If you ever drove a windowless
van, they damn well better work. Mirrors today don't really have a
blind spot, they have wide angle, which is what keeps large trucks from
running your ass over.

I also turn my head to look at intersections.

Good news, a crash helmet will not prevent you from swiveling your head,
all the way around if you are a bird.

Age is
> taking its toll - the damned head don't turn like it used to...

Yeah, that's what my brother, whom also distrusts his mirrors, was
whining about. He generally drives about 20 mph in a 40 mph zone, so he
probably could text, read the newspaper, and swivel his head while
getting some head, and no one would notice, other than some gov't cop
looking for texters...

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

On 2/22/2012 12:11 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 9:59 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>> On 2/21/2012 9:07 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:30:31 -0600, Steve Barker
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>>>>>>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>>>>>>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>>>>>>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>>>>>>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR
>>>>>> are seldom
>>>>>> related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be about on
>>>>>> par. The
>>>>>> forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car
>>>>>> accident
>>>>>> deaths, are not well related to helmet use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
>>>>> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
>>>>> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
>>>>> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _I_ personally don't 'constantly swivel' my head. And I don't think ANY
>>>> driver "needs" to. What about a panel van? Would they just swivel
>>>> their heads to check the bodies in the back or what? the head needs to
>>>> turn no farther than the mirror. A helmet allows this just fine.
>>>
>>> Mirrors are only good for a check. I turn my head to see peripherally
>>> if not directly before making lane changes in town. Mirror work OK on
>>> the freeway, but are not sufficient for town driving, backing out, or
>>> driving into traffic. The need is there, whether or not you see it,
>>> Steve.
>>>
>>> --
>>> The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
>>> is to fill the world with fools.
>>> -- Herbert Spencer
>>
>> obviously you are an incompetent driver and have never driven a panel
>> van or
>> truck. Mirrors are all that should be necessary.
>
> Being something other than a jerk isn't really your strong suit, is it?

I dunno Steve, he's not the one that can't swivel his head whilst
wearing a crash helmet. He's also right about the mirror stuff, so even
if you can't swivel your head while wearing a crash helmet, your mirrors
would still work, which is fortunate because anyone driving a large
truck would never be able to back up, change lanes, or do anything other
than forge straight ahead, making that truck delivering your brand new
gov't approved saw stop late, perhaps months late, resulting in red neck
finger loss, big time.

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

On 2/21/2012 11:28 PM, Jack wrote:
> On 2/22/2012 12:11 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
>> On 2/21/2012 9:59 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2012 9:07 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:30:31 -0600, Steve Barker
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:35:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>>>>>>>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>>>>>>>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>>>>>>>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>>>>>>>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR
>>>>>>> are seldom
>>>>>>> related to helmet protection, and in real life, would be about on
>>>>>>> par. The
>>>>>>> forces that result in both NASCAR deaths and in real world car
>>>>>>> accident
>>>>>>> deaths, are not well related to helmet use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
>>>>>> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
>>>>>> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
>>>>>> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _I_ personally don't 'constantly swivel' my head. And I don't think ANY
>>>>> driver "needs" to. What about a panel van? Would they just swivel
>>>>> their heads to check the bodies in the back or what? the head needs to
>>>>> turn no farther than the mirror. A helmet allows this just fine.
>>>>
>>>> Mirrors are only good for a check. I turn my head to see peripherally
>>>> if not directly before making lane changes in town. Mirror work OK on
>>>> the freeway, but are not sufficient for town driving, backing out, or
>>>> driving into traffic. The need is there, whether or not you see it,
>>>> Steve.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
>>>> is to fill the world with fools.
>>>> -- Herbert Spencer
>>>
>>> obviously you are an incompetent driver and have never driven a panel
>>> van or
>>> truck. Mirrors are all that should be necessary.
>>
>> Being something other than a jerk isn't really your strong suit, is it?
>
> I dunno Steve, he's not the one that can't swivel his head whilst wearing a
> crash helmet. He's also right about the mirror stuff, so even if you can't
> swivel your head while wearing a crash helmet, your mirrors would still work,
> which is fortunate because anyone driving a large truck would never be able to
> back up, change lanes, or do anything other than forge straight ahead, making
> that truck delivering your brand new gov't approved saw stop late, perhaps
> months late, resulting in red neck finger loss, big time.

I'm not just talking about this particular post. I don't like to jump to
conclusions, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but after
about 74 vitriolic posts in a row from this guy, and completely independent of
whether I think he's "right" or "wrong", it's become pretty apparent to me that
the guy has ragingly dominant JERK gene.

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 2/21/2012 9:28 PM, Jack wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 10:35 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm still thinking it would be nicer if Big Brother mandated NASCAR
>>> approved crash helmets for every dumb ass riding in a car. The fact
>>> that 40,000 deaths occur every year from auto accidents vs 4,000
>>> fingers wreaking havoc on masturbating saw owners doesn't seem to
>>> affect their all knowing niceness.
>
>> Well - that really wouldn't work too well Jack. Deaths in NASCAR are
>> seldom
>> related to helmet protection,
>
> Yeah, that's my point. Helmets seldom cause deaths, frequently prevent
> them, that's why they wear them.
>
> and in real life, would be about on par.
>
> In real life, far more lives would be saved if Big Brother required
> everyone in a car wear a crash helmet than would be saved requiring
> every TS had saw stop tech, and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
have you priced helmets recently? good ones run $600-800 now, and need
to be replaced frequently.

On 2/22/2012 1:29 PM, chaniarts wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 9:28 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 2/21/2012 10:35 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:

>> Yeah, that's my point. Helmets seldom cause deaths, frequently prevent
>> them, that's why they wear them.
>>
>> and in real life, would be about on par.
>>
>> In real life, far more lives would be saved if Big Brother required
>> everyone in a car wear a crash helmet than would be saved requiring
>> every TS had saw stop tech, and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
> have you priced helmets recently? good ones run $600-800 now, and need
> to be replaced frequently.

Yes, I have. Most are under $100, a good Bell, DOT approved is $100. I
never heard of a crash helmet needing to be replaced frequently? Not
sure where you buy an $800 crash helmet but even that ridiculous price
is in line with SS tech and it could save your life, not just a finger
or two. A woodworking bonus is if you get a face mask for your helmet,
it would double as face mask for your lathe work.

I think it's amusing some folks are OK with big brother mandating $1000
item on a table saw to save a few fingers, but balk at mandating a $100
crash helmet to save a bunch of lives.

Along that same line, I think anyone getting a head injury riding in a
car w/o a crash helmet should sue GM for not including crash helmets in
every new car sold. The tech is there, GM knows about it, it is very
affordable, unlike SS tech, so why are they not sued, same as Ryobi?

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

On 2/23/2012 10:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I have. Most are under $100, a good Bell, DOT approved is $100.
>> I never heard of a crash helmet needing to be replaced frequently? Not
>> sure where you buy an $800 crash helmet but even that ridiculous
>> price is in line with SS tech and it could save your life, not just a
>> finger or two. A woodworking bonus is if you get a face mask for
>> your helmet, it would double as face mask for your lathe work.
>>
>> I think it's amusing some folks are OK with big brother mandating
>> $1000 item on a table saw to save a few fingers, but balk at
>> mandating a $100 crash helmet to save a bunch of lives.
>>
>> Along that same line, I think anyone getting a head injury riding in a
>> car w/o a crash helmet should sue GM for not including crash helmets
>> in every new car sold. The tech is there, GM knows about it, it is
>> very affordable, unlike SS tech, so why are they not sued, same as
>> Ryobi?
>
> Although I realize that you are reaching to an extreem in order to prove
> your point Jack,

True, it seems extreme to some, but it's right on target to the
socialists amongst us.

I'm going to chime in on the basics of what you post above.

> To be sure - a good helmet can indeed be obtained for $100 or less, and
> requires no regular replacement other than impact which "may" compromise its
> integrity.

Yes, one extremist says they cost $600-$800, another says you can't
swivel your head whilst wearing a crash helmet. Those two points are
not just extreme, but stupid.

Your point on big brother mandating a $1000 item (though I'm not
> sure that is really the actual cost...)

Me neither, I more or less was summarizing what others have been saying.
I know the replacement mechanism is around $100. Don't have a clue
what SS would charge General tools to include it on their saws, plus the
cost of the mechanism and installation costs. A SS costs about $1000
more than other top quality equivalent saws, or more, so the guess is
probably close, closer than a $800 frequently replaced crash helmet.

is well enough taken, in the spirit

'tis all about the spirit, and lots of truth, mostly truth, in that spirit.

> of the point. You did however forget one particular point... What about the
> claim that "it costs us all...". You know - the socialistic cry that
> somehow what you do - that I don't like - can be regulated because "it costs
> all of us..."

Of course I was thinking about adding that as well, but didn't want to
jeopardize those poor rich crab fisherman up north that I spend a ton of
money on to rescue their sorry asses from the sea with my costly
helicopters and crews, just so they can get filthy, steenking rich
killing crabs.

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

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:12:57 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:41:56 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Steve Barker wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2012 2:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/12 12:34 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter
>>>>> and as a spoof.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you know who Steven Colbert is, or his show?
>>>> The whole show is spoof and the laughter isn't canned, it's the live
>>>> studio audience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> no, i'm not familiar with him. But the laughter distracts from the
>>> seriousness of the thing. Like I said, it's a shame it was presented
>>> this way.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't think it was funny either. But probably 98% of the people
>>watching and laughing don't own a table saw. As far as the people
>>writing, I don't know whether they have a political agenda or not.
>
>My guess is yes, they do. It may have been a put up to get some
>attention. Write your congressman and tell him how we need this
>safety device.

Oh, Ed. Just go pay your (what, 3.5 grand now?) money and get your saw
and leave the rest of us alone. Don't get the fidiots in CONgress
involved!

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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:47:46 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2/21/2012 11:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Helmets in cars would INCREASE accident rates by a very large margin.
>> Peripheral vision is severely diminished, and NASCAR drivers only need
>> to see what's ahead of them and in their mirrors. They're not all
>> constantly swiveling their heads, as a daily driver needs to do.
>
>Moot point ... most "daily drivers" these days seem to have a cell phone
>stuck in one ear, making it impossible to do much head swiveling.

True, even though that's illegal in most states now. When did we, as
a society, decide that we had to be wired into everything at every
moment? London't putting up pads on their light posts so the fidiots
don't run headlong into them while texting.

Most drivers today can't even steer, let alone drive a car or truck.
And that's when they have all of their phones, CDs, radios, NAVs, and
TVs turned -off-.

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

Geeez Dave. What browser do you use? Maybe you have to uninstall that Forte
Agent crap first?


--------
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:39:23 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>do you guys not have google? :-p
>http://www.hulu.com/watch/329024/the-colbert-report-people-who-are-destroying-america-sawstop

It's not a problem of finding the website or the show, it's playing it
from outside the US, just as I guessed.

Message displayed this time:
We're sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within
the United States. For more information on Hulu's international
availability, click here.

I'm sure I could find it online somewhere, but I have a decent idea of
what the clip was about from the still images I saw.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:41:56 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Steve Barker wrote:
>> On 2/19/2012 2:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 2/19/12 12:34 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>>>
>>>> excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter
>>>> and as a spoof.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know who Steven Colbert is, or his show?
>>> The whole show is spoof and the laughter isn't canned, it's the live
>>> studio audience.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> no, i'm not familiar with him. But the laughter distracts from the
>> seriousness of the thing. Like I said, it's a shame it was presented
>> this way.
>>
>
>I didn't think it was funny either. But probably 98% of the people
>watching and laughing don't own a table saw. As far as the people
>writing, I don't know whether they have a political agenda or not.

My guess is yes, they do. It may have been a put up to get some
attention. Write your congressman and tell him how we need this
safety device.

On 2/19/2012 2:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 2/19/12 12:34 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
>
>> excellent video, too bad it was presented with the canned laughter
>> and as a spoof.
>>
>
> Do you know who Steven Colbert is, or his show?
> The whole show is spoof and the laughter isn't canned, it's the live
> studio audience.
>
>

no, i'm not familiar with him. But the laughter distracts from the
seriousness of the thing. Like I said, it's a shame it was presented
this way.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

OMG!

----------

"Larry W" wrote in message news:[email protected]...


I think this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTI-QsTAuTw&feature=related

and the others on the same page do more to promote woodworking safety.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

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