Sawstop's suit against Ryobi is upheld

"frozen north"??

It was beach weather here for Thanksgiving. Ask some USanians how warm it
is during their Thanksgiving.


------------
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:101020111703397390%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
Up here in the frozen north it appears that anyone teaching, especially
kids, goes for the SS. Individuals do not.

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

RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 9, 8:14 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 10/9/11 12:22 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
>>>> Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.
>>
>>> Everything I've read says it's not a problem.
>>> Even so, here's the real issue. Who's cutting soaking wet wood with
>>> a table saw anyway? There are too many other concerns for me to be
>>> using wet wood before I would even approach a table saw with it. If
>>> you're using wood that's wet enough to set off the sawstop, then
>>> you deserve to pay the stupid tax.
>>
>> Try building a PT privacy fence.
>> A. PT wood is VERY wet
>> B. Many times pickets have to be cut to fit
>> C. The solution, I suppose, is a circular saw.
>
> Now that must have been a difficult thought process! I don't even use
> my good circular saw on PT wood - the wood doesn't warrant it.

Uh, how do you get it to fit, gnaw the wood? Use a hand saw? Forget that
idea and erect chain-link? Screw the whole thing and let your chickens go
free-range?

>
> BTW, have you ever paid more than $150 for a tablesaw, new or used?
> You're the Harbor Freight guy, so I tend to doubt it.
>

No, but I'll have to if SawStop has its way. I did buy an economy table saw
(used) just two days ago for $30 from a Craigslist ad.

It's going to be my retirement investment.

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


>> Same thing. That's winning the battle but losing the war.
>
> NOT the same thing, the suite did not go against him.

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

Nuff said ....

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

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:00:14 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:30:12 -0700 (PDT), Hoosierpopi
>>No, it's us. We have decided so with purchase after purchase of low-
>>cost saws from HFT, etc. When better quality, safer alternatives were
>>available for twice the price and maybe more.
>
>And *that* is the story of the entire North American market with the
>bulk of it's manufacturing and services contracted somewhere overseas
>or out of country. Good for the lifestyle of current generations, not
>so good for soon to be future generations.

No, CONGRESS is why jobs are scattering to the winds. It's just too hard to
make things here. ...and getting much worse.

On 10/9/2011 4:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:16:38 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 10:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:40:08 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2011 7:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:56:37 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/8/2011 3:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>>>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald Ross<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws
>>>>>>>>> for occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
>>>>>>>> "carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
>>>>>>>> into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
>>>>>>>> with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
>>>>>>>> market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
>>>>>>>> tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
>>>>>>>> regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
>>>>>>>> those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
>>>>>>>> date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
>>>>>>>> people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
>>>>>>>> Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
>>>>>>>> be double that...if you live that long. ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby saving
>>>>>>> $100 or so on the false positives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the blade guard
>>>>>>> and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contact SawStop and ask them how many false stops that they have not
>>>>>> helped the owner out with. From what I have always heard by those that
>>>>>> had a story to go with the situation, SawStop always provided the
>>>>>> replacement parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do they fork over $125 for a new blade, too?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure but I recall some one saying that one must take responsibility
>>>> for ones mistakes.
>>>
>>> Mistake? We were talking about a false-trip. The "mistake" is the SawStop's.
>>>
>>> ...or are you talking about the mistake being buying a SawStop? ;-)
>>
>> I am thinking more in lines of, what if whose fault it cannot be proven
>> one way or the other. Perhaps the blade was touched and it was not
>> actually a false trip. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer to give
>> the customer the benefit of the doubt and replace parts but not accessories.
>
> In that case, how can it *ever* be proven, short of blood dripping off the
> mechanism.

Consider the fact that you CAN touch the spinning blade and set off the
trigger and you can touch the spinning blade with out harm on regular
saw. If you touch the mid side of the blade there are no teeth. There
are no guarantees either way but it is in Sawstops best interest to
assist in questionable incidents but not take full responsibility.
Personally I don't know if they have replaced the blades in the past or
not but the early owners that were having false triggers were happily
reporting the participating by Sawstop to remedy the situation. They
seemed content with the steps taken by Sawstop.

Until you own the product you really can't piss and moan about what
might or might not be a fact about their customer service after the
sale. By all indicators that I have read a vast majority of the owners
are more than satisfied.

On Oct 9, 11:11=A0am, "Jim Northey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And after activating the bypass, some one then cuts a finger off . Do the=
y
> now sue the makers of Sawstop for telling them to turn off a feature that
> they pushed =A0through =A0to stop that from happening ?

I guess you'd have to ask that person, eh?

I was addressing the disinformation about the difficulty about cutting
wet wood, not the ability of a person/lawyer to sue over any damned
thing at all.

R

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
>> testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
>
> I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
> it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
> The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
> and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
> which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
> loose.
>
> R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

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

Ditto here.


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


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

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


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

Shakespeare was right.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

On 10/9/2011 9:56 PM, Josepi wrote:
> The twelve jurors, that were present during the testimonies of the
> ``real`` story, were all complete idiots or all paid by the SawStop
> people to support them. I am sure the people here are all better
> informed what actually happened than any stupid jurors could possibly be.
>
> American justice is just a crock anyway. Why bother.
>
> ----------
> "Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
> stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
> http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1824P-01A.pdf
>
>
>

You are a classic example of stupid is as stupit does.

On 10/9/2011 11:19 PM, Hoosierpopi wrote:
> "Osorio largely relied on the testimony of his witness, Dr.
> Stephen Gass, inventor of "SawStop,"
>
> Neat trick. You invent something, can't sell it to the industry, so
> you get people to sue in hopes of forcing industry to adopt your
> product/design. Then again, it just may have been a slick attorney
> that turned Gass onto this idea. We may start seeing Ambulance Chasers
> advertising on This Old House!
>
> Ah, America . . .
>
>

Really no need to sell it to the industry, SawStop is selling more than
it's share of TS's by a wide margin.

In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

> The SawStop is not low cost and it is
> being well supported by the public.

In my brief experience working retail sales of WW equipment, the
"public" is not buying Sawstops.

Institutions are buying Sawstops, to reduce their liability exposure.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
<"[email protected]"> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:45:28 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Leon
> ><lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> >
> >> The SawStop is not low cost and it is
> >> being well supported by the public.
> >
> >In my brief experience working retail sales of WW equipment, the
> >"public" is not buying Sawstops.
> >
> >Institutions are buying Sawstops, to reduce their liability exposure.
>
> Because of our ridiculous tort system.

I'm in Canada, not the USA. Here it appears that reduced insurance
costs are the deciding factor.

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

In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

> On 10/10/2011 10:45 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article<[email protected]>, Leon
> > <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> >
> >> The SawStop is not low cost and it is
> >> being well supported by the public.
> >
> > In my brief experience working retail sales of WW equipment, the
> > "public" is not buying Sawstops.
> >
> > Institutions are buying Sawstops, to reduce their liability exposure.
> >
>
> Just going by what my local Woodcraft store is indicating, SS sales by
> far out number Delta, Jet, and Powermatic.

Up here in the frozen north it appears that anyone teaching, especially
kids, goes for the SS. Individuals do not.

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

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 09:28:55 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Oct 9, 12:11 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>   I used to have a bad habit, as an apprentice mechanic, of sticking
>> my foot out to catch a dropped wrench etc, so it wouldn't skittar way
>> across the floor. One afternoon I went in to change the tanks on the
>> torch in regular shoes and the big two stage brass regulator slipped
>> from my hand.
>>
>> That cured me of sticking my foot out to catch things!!!!!!
>
>That's funny. I remember doing the same thing - sticking out my foot
>to break the fall of the inanimate object. I don't recall when I
>stopped doing that, but I'm sure it was an ouch! moment that did the
>trick.
>
>R
It was 2 months before I could wear a work boot, and over six before I
had a toe-nail again. Those old 2 stage brass regulators were
HEAVY!!!!

On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
>stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
>http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1824P-01A.pdf

What ever happened to the good old days when you did something stupid
it was your own damn fault!

News' mention of Mark Twain's quote "First, we shoot all the lawyers"
should definitely be the first step.

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

On 10/8/2011 7:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:56:37 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2011 3:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>> On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald Ross<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws
>>>>> for occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.
>>>>
>>>> They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
>>>> "carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
>>>> into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
>>>> with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.
>>>>
>>>> There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
>>>> market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
>>>> tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
>>>> regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
>>>> those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
>>>> date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
>>>> people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.
>>>>
>>>> Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
>>>> Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
>>>> be double that...if you live that long. ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby saving
>>> $100 or so on the false positives.
>>>
>>> Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the blade guard
>>> and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...
>>>
>>>
>> Contact SawStop and ask them how many false stops that they have not
>> helped the owner out with. From what I have always heard by those that
>> had a story to go with the situation, SawStop always provided the
>> replacement parts.
>
> Do they fork over $125 for a new blade, too?

Not sure but I recall some one saying that one must take responsibility
for ones mistakes.

On 10/8/2011 7:51 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:51:31 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
>>>>>> testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
>>>>> it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
>>>>> The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
>>>>> and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
>>>>> which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
>>>>> loose.
>>>>>
>>>>> R
>>>>
>>>> Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
>>>> through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
>>>> the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
>>>> high a price to pay.
>>>
>>> Do you know what that "price" was?
>>
>> I did have a good idea but no longer recall. Right now Bosch has
>> indicated that the cost would be $55 for their bench top saws.
>
> I had heard numbers like $800 on the price of a cabinet saw.

Yeah I have heard those numbers too, but not from a manufacturer.

In article <[email protected]>, Ed Pawlowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a useful
> >product from practical application. I don't know about the rest of you, but
> >adding such a huge required expense to an average table saw, makes it fall
> >into the category of unaffordable for me! Great idea. Love the concept. Have
> >cut both thumbs numerous times, and definitely appreciate the value of such
> >a device. Unfortunately, $3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is
> >also unfortunate that it will most likely become "required equipment"
>
> Once it does, the price will drop as competition and volume bring the
> prices down. Probably new technology too. It is the end of the cheap
> $99 saw though.

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

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

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

On 10/8/2011 12:28 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
> On 10/8/2011 12:58 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
>>> testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
>>
>> I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
>> it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
>> The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
>> and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
>> which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
>> loose.
>>
>> R
>
> The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very
> thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything
> reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being required.

Might be a problem now however Sawstop approached most every
manufacturer about acquiring a license to use the product. They had
their change and thumbed their noses at it.


> My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
> lawyer.

Yup!

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2011 04:37:22 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, explain to me why the owner of the sawstop patent is
>>>> involved in a lawsuit against Ryobi unless it was greed.
>>>> If the product was so damn good it would sell itself and
>>>> he wouldn't need to bother with Ryobi. Go ahead, I'll
>>>> wait...
>>>>
>>>
>>> So - anyone who is interested in profit - regardless of the
>>> amount of that profit is motivated by greed? Perhaps he is
>>> - I don't know, because I don't know the guy. What he is
>>> doing is fairly commonplace in the world - why this
>>> disproportionate ire over sawstop?
>
> It's proportionate, Mike. I get upset every time I hear about a scam
> like this, no matter who pulls it.
>

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

>
>> You're correct, it is fairly commplace, that sir -is- the
>> problem.
>
> Where's Mike's head? "It's OK because everybody does it."?
> <tsk tsk tsk> Go talk to an inmate in a federal prison. Are you going
> to start raping men, stabbing other inmates and guards, and taking
> illegal drugs just because he says "Everybody's doing it."? Hmm?
>

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

>
>> It's not about how much money he's making, it's about the
>> methods he's trying to use to make it (see quote at the bottom).
>> He came up with an invention that based on cost most people
>> won't buy. So instead he lobbies to get laws passed requiring
>> the use of his invention.
>> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ballot/ballot06/TableSaws.pdf
>>
>> The plantiff admitted he was using the saw with the guard and
>> fence removed, sounding as though he was free handing his cuts.
>> How about some personal responsibility? You stick your finger in
>> a table saw you lose a finger. If you choose to purchase a
>> product that prevents that from happening, good for you, I'm
>> sure you'll be happy with it.
>>
>> Admittedly there have been many improvements in products that
>> make them safer, some probably as a result of litigation such as
>> this case (stupidity, plain and clear). It's also costing us an
>> enormous amount of money for the government to babysit everyone
>> that isn't smart enough to survive on their own. Product
>> liability is a huge financial drain on everyone. The only
>> winners are a few victims and a lot of attorneys.
>
> But the people making all the REAL money are the attorneys.
> Victims get a pittance of the overall funds transferred in these
> rapes, erm, I mean lawsuits.
>

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

>
>> If there wasn't a victim involved, personally, it would thrill
>> me to see the first failure of the SawStop mechanism. Maybe he'd
>> have a different point of view when the shoe's on the other
>> foot.
>>
>> "Stephen Gass, the inventor of the SawStop technology that
>> safety advocates would like to see on table saws, has retained
>> Pamela Gilbert, a former executive director at the CPSC, to
>> lobby for a saw safety rule that could help make Gass wealthy.
>> Gass, of Tualatin, Ore., paid Gilbert $20,000 over a two-month
>> period in the first quarter of the year."
>>
>> Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/new-rules-for-
>> table-saws-sought-to-cut-amputations-052511#ixzz1eJ8zOh00
>
> Why isn't lobbying illegal, or at least pursued as influence peddling,
> yet? <sigh>

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

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

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 10/10/2011 11:13 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:37:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2011 6:56 AM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2011 3:02 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
>>>>>> testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
>>>>> it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
>>>>> The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
>>>>> and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
>>>>> which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
>>>>> loose.
>>>>>
>>>>> R
>>>>
>>>> Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
>>>> through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
>>>> the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
>>>> high a price to pay.
>>>
>>>
>>> The manufacturer already provides guards and splitters that provide a
>>> margin of safety that, If used by the operator, would eliminate 99%+ of
>>> all injuries, and has no false triggers that cost hundreds of dollars in
>>> one-shot parts and blades each time they occur.
>>>
>>> These are the saws that the consumer is buying.
>>>
>>> Maybe each new saw sold by anybody should have a Sawstop Brochure and
>>> price list attached to it, so it will be plain that the purchaser knew
>>> they had an option and they chose otherwise.
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think the guards suck, they simply prevent many procedures from being
>> done on a TS with them installed. Kinda tough to cut a board to length
>> that needs to be say 60" long with a guard attached, or cut dado's, cove
>> moldings, 1/4" wide rips, etc.
>
> Guards are easily sidestepped, too. Place your hand in the saw's path
> and it will slide right under the guard. And you're right about the
> splitters stopping dadoing, coves, rabbets, and the like. Preferred
> are the top-mounted guards with dust collection and rip guides in the
> zero-clearance inserts. Both are easily removed and installed so it
> takes just a minute extra to set up for your specialty cuts.

But those overhead guards are sooooo expensive... ;~)




>
>
>> BUT I think you are spot on with the notion that the manufacturer offers
>> the SawStop option and there can no longer be any law suits against
>> manufacturers in this regard.
>
> Hah! What an optimist. While it means they shouldn't continue, you'd
> better believe that the lawsuits will not stop. Slow, maybe, but stop?
> No way. There are far too many ambulance-chasing speaking weasels and
> stupid, greedy people out there.

No let there be an opt out waver. You acknowledge and buy at your own
risk. You buy the saw you loose the right to blame some one else.

Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>> Texas.
>>
>> OK, that sounds progressive <grin>
>
> Yeahbut there's always the other side... This clicpped from a news
> article about these "flocking" doctors...
>
> "Complaints to the board have increased dramatically, and disciplinary
> actions against docs has nearly tripled since 2001".
>
> Yup - they're flocking down there...

How about quoting the whole thing:

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

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

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

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

But with this superficial article you referenced, who knows?

On Oct 9, 8:20=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 4:18 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby
> >> saving $100 or so on the false positives.
>
> >> Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the
> >> blade guard and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...
>
> > That should be just about as effective as clipping a couple of wires
> > inside your computer to circumvent Windows registration. =A0Sheesh.
>
> I said it "might" be as simple as clipping a couple of wires. Defeating t=
he
> saw stop may require buying an add-on electronic module or maybe just
> removing the whole mechanism.

Sure - that's possible!

It's also possible that someone could read the manual and then they'd
know how to put the SawStop into bypass mode without having to do
something stupid.

R

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:59:37 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:02:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>> Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
>>> Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.
>>>
>>>
>> Everything I've read says it's not a problem.
>
>It's not a problem because the saw comes with a switch to turn off the
>sensor. Of course, I'm waiting for the day that someone turns it off,
>forgets to turn it back on, loses a finger, and sues SawStop for letting
>it happen.
Was the "bypass" option on the first saws, or was it added to later
production because of the "false triggering" problem??

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:05:48 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 10/8/2011 9:49 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:52:29 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/8/2011 2:45 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/2011 3:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
>>>>>>>> testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
>>>>>>> it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
>>>>>>> The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
>>>>>>> and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
>>>>>>> which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
>>>>>>> loose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> R
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
>>>>>> through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
>>>>>> the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
>>>>>> high a price to pay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know what that "price" was?
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, all the people I know who have one in their shops have had
>>>> triggers. Some of them were on wet wood, stray metal or other nuisance
>>>> reasons, some were for no known reason. None were for human/blade
>>>> contact. Each trigger costs at least $100, often more depending on the
>>>> value of the blade. This is a solution looking for a problem, especially
>>>> when you consider that a standard guard, or any after market guard would
>>>> solve the problem just as well.
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>>> And every false trigger that I have heard of was taken care of by SawStop.
>>
>> Nice! They charge you double the regular rate for a saw of that
>> particular quality (an extra $1,600 or so) and then give you a couple
>> $50 freebies to make up for it. Whatta guy!
>>
>> --
>> The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
>> likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
>> than not, unconsidered.
>> -- Andre Gide
>Have you priced a Powermatic or The new Unisaw "with out" any the blade
>brake lately? Are you normally this ignorant or do you simply have a
>bug up your butt?

X5s are still available for a *LOT* less than $3500; a perfectly good saw.

On Oct 8, 12:31=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
> testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Hoosierpopi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Osorio largely relied on the testimony of his witness, Dr.
>Stephen Gass, inventor of "SawStop,"
>
>Neat trick. You invent something, can't sell it to the industry, so
>you get people to sue in hopes of forcing industry to adopt your
>product/design. Then again, it just may have been a slick attorney
>that turned Gass onto this idea. We may start seeing Ambulance Chasers
>advertising on This Old House!

Gass *IS* the slick attorney.

>Ah, America . . .
>

On Oct 9, 8:14=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
> > On 10/9/11 12:22 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> =A0 =A0Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
> >> Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.
>
> > Everything I've read says it's not a problem.
> > Even so, here's the real issue. Who's cutting soaking wet wood with a
> > table saw anyway? There are too many other concerns for me to be using
> > wet wood before I would even approach a table saw with it. If you're
> > using wood that's wet enough to set off the sawstop, then you deserve
> > to pay the stupid tax.
>
> Try building a PT privacy fence.
> A. PT wood is VERY wet
> B. Many times pickets have to be cut to fit
> C. The solution, I suppose, is a circular saw.

Now that must have been a difficult thought process! I don't even use
my good circular saw on PT wood - the wood doesn't warrant it.

BTW, have you ever paid more than $150 for a tablesaw, new or used?
You're the Harbor Freight guy, so I tend to doubt it.

R

On 10/9/2011 10:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:40:08 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2011 7:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:56:37 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2011 3:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald Ross<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws
>>>>>>> for occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
>>>>>> "carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
>>>>>> into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
>>>>>> with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
>>>>>> market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
>>>>>> tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
>>>>>> regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
>>>>>> those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
>>>>>> date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
>>>>>> people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
>>>>>> Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
>>>>>> be double that...if you live that long. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby saving
>>>>> $100 or so on the false positives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the blade guard
>>>>> and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Contact SawStop and ask them how many false stops that they have not
>>>> helped the owner out with. From what I have always heard by those that
>>>> had a story to go with the situation, SawStop always provided the
>>>> replacement parts.
>>>
>>> Do they fork over $125 for a new blade, too?
>>
>> Not sure but I recall some one saying that one must take responsibility
>> for ones mistakes.
>
> Mistake? We were talking about a false-trip. The "mistake" is the SawStop's.
>
> ...or are you talking about the mistake being buying a SawStop? ;-)

I am thinking more in lines of, what if whose fault it cannot be proven
one way or the other. Perhaps the blade was touched and it was not
actually a false trip. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer to give
the customer the benefit of the doubt and replace parts but not accessories.

On 10/9/2011 4:52 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:59:37 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:02:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>>> Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
>>>> Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Everything I've read says it's not a problem.
>>
>> It's not a problem because the saw comes with a switch to turn off the
>> sensor. Of course, I'm waiting for the day that someone turns it off,
>> forgets to turn it back on, loses a finger, and sues SawStop for letting
>> it happen.
> Was the "bypass" option on the first saws, or was it added to later
> production because of the "false triggering" problem??

It has always been there, the designer was an avid woodworker so he knew
what would be needed. Additionally I inquired about 10 years ago before
the saw was available as to whether the stop would engage after the saw
motor is turned off, it does.

On 10/9/2011 4:47 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> Try building a PT privacy fence.
>>> A. PT wood is VERY wet
>>> B. Many times pickets have to be cut to fit
>>> C. The solution, I suppose, is a circular saw.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That is why I always use/used a circular saw for all cuts on the 30+
>> fences that I have built. And no not "all" PT wood is very wet, I
>> often used kiln dried PT to guard against excessive warping.
>
> I agree. I stack fence wood in the garage for a couple of months, then take
> the warped pickets back to the vendor. Drying like that minimizes the gaps
> between pickets if they dry on the vine.
>
> Sill, there are times, such as repairing a broken picket that the neighbor's
> dogs have knocked down...
>
>

I really did not have the luxury of letting PT wood set for months. I
was being paid for these fences. My experience with building fences
taught me to buy better materials to start with, namely cedar pickets,
I use PT for ground contact, posts, bottom rot rails, and for the 3
rails to attach the pickets to. No warping with 3 rails and the PT rot
board on the bottom prevented morning due from wicking up the bottom of
the pickets. The rot board also eliminated the need for a string to
level the tops of the pickets.

On 10/9/2011 4:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:28:40 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 10:11 AM, Jim Northey wrote:
>>> "RicodJour"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:97aee8f3-4548-4c4c-a7c9-974702e46234@d28g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Oct 9, 1:22 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
>>>> Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.
>>>>
>>>> You can't beat stupid. Make something idiotproof and they just come up
>>>> with a better idiot, and another dozen lawyers.
>>>
>>> This has been gone over before and you're still spreading
>>> disinformation.
>>>
>>> From SawStop's FAQ:
>>>
>>> 6. Will cutting green or “wet” wood activate the SawStop safety
>>> system?
>>> SawStop saws cut most wet wood without a problem. However, if the wood
>>> is very green or wet (for example, wet enough to spray a mist when
>>> cutting), or if the wood is both wet and pressure treated, then the
>>> wood may be sufficiently conductive to trigger the brake. Accordingly,
>>> the best practice is to dry wet or green wood before cutting by
>>> standing it inside and apart from other wood for about one day. You
>>> can also cut wet pressure treated wood and other conductive material
>>> by placing the saw in bypass mode to deactivate the safety system.
>>>
>>> And after activating the bypass, some one then cuts a finger off . Do they
>>> now sue the makers of Sawstop for telling them to turn off a feature that
>>> they pushed through to stop that from happening ?
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not at all, the operator turned the system off. He pays the stupid tax
>> and hopefully he has insurance to cover the thousands of dollars that
>> his mistake just cost him.
>
> That theory doesn't work for guards. Why should it for the bypass?

What theory? Not all operations performed on a TS can be done with
factory guards. It is a correct procedure to remove the guard for
certain procedures.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:40:08 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 10/8/2011 7:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:56:37 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/8/2011 3:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald Ross<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws
>>>>>> for occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
>>>>> "carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
>>>>> into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
>>>>> with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.
>>>>>
>>>>> There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
>>>>> market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
>>>>> tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
>>>>> regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
>>>>> those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
>>>>> date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
>>>>> people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
>>>>> Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
>>>>> be double that...if you live that long. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby saving
>>>> $100 or so on the false positives.
>>>>
>>>> Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the blade guard
>>>> and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Contact SawStop and ask them how many false stops that they have not
>>> helped the owner out with. From what I have always heard by those that
>>> had a story to go with the situation, SawStop always provided the
>>> replacement parts.
>>
>> Do they fork over $125 for a new blade, too?
>
>Not sure but I recall some one saying that one must take responsibility
>for ones mistakes.

If those were false positives, then SawStop is the responsible party.
But just try to get blood out of a gilded turnip.

--
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide

On 10/11/2011 11:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> Answer me this: Wouldn't a sliding table result in the same number -
>>> or close thereto - of reduced accidents as a SawStop?
>>
>>
>> No! You can still easily cut yourself with a sliding table. The
>> point of the SawStop is to prevent an accident when you do something
>> stupid. A sled does not prevent you from doing something stupid.
>>
>>
>
> A table saw sled encourages you to keep your fingers away from the blade -
> and still make the desired cut.
>
> But you may be right. I suspect the majority of injuries occur when ripping
> a (narrow) board. Sleds don't work for squat when ripping.
>
>

You might be surprised how many injuries happen when not even cutting
wood... I know I was. ;~(

Lobby Dosser wrote:

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

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Han wrote:

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

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 10/10/2011 8:19 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> SawStop turns even an economy saw into a "premium priced" saw.
>>
>> That is why you would disable the safety feature???
>
> No, I would avoid it altogether.
>
>>
>> And as far as whether you consider it a premium priced saw or not, I
>> don't think it does. That is strictly a personal preference call. If
>> you don't want to spend the money, buy a used saw or buy the saw you
>> want now in the event that this is required in the future. Or wait
>> and see.
>
> Answer me this: Wouldn't a sliding table result in the same number - or
> close thereto - of reduced accidents as a SawStop?


No! You can still easily cut yourself with a sliding table. The point
of the SawStop is to prevent an accident when you do something stupid.
A sled does not prevent you from doing something stupid.



>
> How many manufacturers provide a crosscut for their economy saws - even at
> extra cost?
>
> Here's one for a Delta that costs as much as a SawStop
> http://www.amazon.com/DELTA-34-555-Sliding-Table-Attachment/dp/B00002235P
>
> Or, you can build your own for ten bucks
> http://www.thewoodshop.20m.com/howto_crosscut.htm
>
>
>

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:30:12 -0700 (PDT), Hoosierpopi
>No, it's us. We have decided so with purchase after purchase of low-
>cost saws from HFT, etc. When better quality, safer alternatives were
>available for twice the price and maybe more.

And *that* is the story of the entire North American market with the
bulk of it's manufacturing and services contracted somewhere overseas
or out of country. Good for the lifestyle of current generations, not
so good for soon to be future generations.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:21:24 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.
>>>
>>> That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
>>> which basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For
>>> example, a contract claim may fail because there was no contract,
>>> but an injured party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or
>>> a property claim could fail because of title defects, but the
>>> injured party might still have a claim based on equitable title. Or
>>> a law-based claim may be successfully defended against on estoppel,
>>> laches, and other equitable defenses.
>>
>>
>> Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law,
>> lawyers routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their
>> business model. :(
>>
>> Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
>> what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral,
>> unethical, etc.
>>
>> 27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but
>> is indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card
>> companies.
>
> How much of that debt that is at 27.9% is _never_ paid back?
>
>> Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.
>
> Mine are 8.something% and 9.something%, respectively. In practice
> they're -1.something%.

The 18-month, zero percent rate on my sweeties two credit cards just
expired. They were both to jump to ~18%. She switched the balances to two
NEW cards at, you guessed it, zero percent.

<[email protected]> wrote
>
> Before using any dangerous tool it's good to think; "now if this
> falls...".
> It's really no different than thinking about where a knife is about to go
> if
> it slips.

Same thing for blacksmiths. I was watching one work once and he told me he
dropped a piece of hot metal once and tried to catch it. It cured him of
that habit forever. To this day, if something falls in the house, he just
lets it fall. To the chagrin of his wife.

On 2011-10-09 10:47:47 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> said:

> But Edison also did not lobby for legislation that required all other
> forms of light to be replaced with his electric lights--he was content
> to let the market take its course.

Not so fast, Bunky...

http://techrights.org/2010/09/03/patent-office-icon-shamed/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents#Current_wars

On 2011-10-09 08:14:13 -0400, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> said:

> Try building a PT privacy fence.
> A. PT wood is VERY wet
> B. Many times pickets have to be cut to fit
> C. The solution, I suppose, is a circular saw.

OR, turn off the sensing circuit.

When all is said and done there are only two things that concern me;
1. Is the manufacturer going to fix my saw (and replace the blade) if the
damn thing malfunctions (ruins my blade and stops my work for the day)

2. How much is it going to add to the cost of the saw I buy.

Max

"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The twelve jurors, that were present during the testimonies of the
> ``real`` story, were all complete idiots or all paid by the SawStop people
> to support them. I am sure the people here are all better informed what
> actually happened than any stupid jurors could possibly be.
>
> American justice is just a crock anyway. Why bother.
>
> ----------
> "Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
> stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
> http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1824P-01A.pdf
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid



"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with
fools"
Herbert Spencer, 1891

On 10/9/2011 8:47 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but Gass is a self-serving shithead. If you think
>>>> otherwise you're a damned fool.
>>>
>>> Who's he supposed to be serving - you? It's his fookin' business, and
>>> he gets to run it any way he sees fit. I don't give a rat's ass about
>>> Gass and it's not a popularity contest anyway.
>>>
>>> There's an old saying, "You can't blame a guy for asking." He's
>>> asking the CPSC for something. It's up to them whether they say yes
>>> or no. Nobody's holding a gun to their heads.
>>>
>>> Your righteous indignation is misplaced, and mis-timed. Your beef
>>> shouldn't be with him. If you have a beef it should be with the CPSC
>>> - IF they essentially pass a SawStop mandate. That's a big if. When
>>> and if that mandate happens, then you can tell me I told you so. I
>>> won't be holding my breath.
>>>
>>
>> Look at two great American inventors:
>>
>> Ben Franklin
>> Lightning rod
>> Bifocals
>> Franklin stove
>> Urinary catheter
>> The odometer
>>
>> Thomas Edison
>> Electric light
>> Phonograph
>> Motion picture camera
>> 1093 various patents
>>
>> Ben Franklin put his inventions into the public domain and never charged a
>> penny for anything.
>>
>> The only thing Edison gave away was the electric chair.
>
> But Edison also did not lobby for legislation that required all other
> forms of light to be replaced with his electric lights--he was content
> to let the market take its course.
>

Edison "was content to let the market take its course"? You should read
up on what Edison did to Nikola Tesla.

On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:42 am, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>> The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
>> stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1824P-01A.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Han
>> email address is invalid
>
> Nothing personal in any of my remarks. To wit:
>
> Too many of the fine people here comment from the basis of their own
> heart/beliefs.
> This is where you are all so wrong.
> Law school teaches one to detach from whatever morals you may have/
> had. Focus on money. When you lose a case, money is ok, when you win a
> case, money is better.
>
> THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.

That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
which basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
defenses.

On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>>> THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.
>>
>> That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity, which
>> basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
>> contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
>> party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
>> could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
>> have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
>> successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
>> defenses.
>
>
> Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
> routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model. :(

You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you are
personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an
emotional response. It is not factually accurate.

> Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
> what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral, unethical,
> etc.

I cannot speak for every law school, neither can you. From personal
experience, your statement is not true as to the law school I went to.

> 27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but is
> indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.
>
My credit card rate is about half that. Keep in mind that a credit card
purchase is basically an unsecured loan of other people's money to
someone offering no proof of ability to repay. I also remember that (a)
no one forced me to enter into a credit card contract, I did it
voluntarily and with eyes open; (b) no one forces me to make purchases
on my credit card, and (c) I can avoid interest payments altogether just
by paying off my balance.

If it's high interest rates that bother you, how about denigrating pawn
shops and those companies that loan instant money against your future
paychecks and tax refunds, instead of credit card companies? They often
charge 5% or more a MONTH.

> Check your next _unilateral_ contract from your credit card company.
>
See above.

On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Han wrote:
>
> It's very easy to fall prey to the credit card shenanigans, if you
> misread the fine print and don't have the wherewithal to extricate
> yourself. Then it goes from being in deep shit to being permanently in
> deep shit. Just ask anyone who's been foreclosed on.
>
That's when you might want a good bankruptcy attorney.

On 10/13/2011 6:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 1:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.
>>>>
>>>> That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
>>>> which
>>>> basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
>>>> contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
>>>> party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
>>>> could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
>>>> have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
>>>> successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
>>>> defenses.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
>>> routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model. :(
>>
>> You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
>> game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you are
>> personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an emotional
>> response. It is not factually accurate.
>
> I was indeed party to a lawsuit so frivolous that _both_ the
> plaintiff, and his attorney, were ordered to
> pay the dependents $15K each. The plaintiff immediately filed for
> bankruptcy, the attorney paid in order to keep his license, but left the
> company with a +$50K bill for our attorneys fees to defend what should
> never have been brought in the first place.
>
So I was right, you've had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the
blame game.

On 10/14/2011 4:18 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 4:07 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 6:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2011 1:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2011 11:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
>>>>>> contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
>>>>>> party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
>>>>>> could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
>>>>>> successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other
>>>>>> equitable
>>>>>> defenses.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
>>>>> routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business
>>>>> model. :(
>>>>
>>>> You've either had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the blame
>>>> game, or you are just parroting what you've heard others say, or you
>>>> are
>>>> personalizing all the "bad lawyer" jokes. Your statement is an
>>>> emotional
>>>> response. It is not factually accurate.
>>>
>>> I was indeed party to a lawsuit so frivolous that _both_ the
>> > plaintiff, and his attorney, were ordered to
>>> pay the dependents $15K each. The plaintiff immediately filed for
>>> bankruptcy, the attorney paid in order to keep his license, but left the
>>> company with a +$50K bill for our attorneys fees to defend what should
>>> never have been brought in the first place.
>>>
>> So I was right, you've had a lawsuit go against you and are playing the
>> blame game.
>
> No he actually had the law suite go for him but it cost him and others a
> small fortune to win. Damn ambulance chasers!

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

"Kris K. Kaput0" wrote:

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

Lew

"Larry W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:08:26 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>The airbag assholes are just as bad as Gass. Yeah, they crammed their
>>>crap down our throats and now we have to wear seat belts to protect us
>>>from their fucking airbags.
>>
>>You just can't stop playing the idiot can you? Anyone who shoots down
>>seatbelts or airbags for that matter doesn't have enough brain cells
>>left to formulate a considered opinion. Normally, your opinion
>>contains a considered amount of scientific comment. It appears physics
>>and the laws of motion have now been dispensed with in your diatribes.
>>
>>Guess you've been bashing your head on the steering wheel too often.
>
> Gee, Dave, I thought that JC's comment was pretty funny myself, it does
> sound like something a stand-up comic would get a good laugh out of.
>
>
> --
> There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
> plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)
>
> Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org


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

Max

On 20 Nov 2011 20:32:16 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:00:30 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a
>>>>useful product from practical application. I don't know about the
>>>>rest of you, but adding such a huge required expense to an average
>>>>table saw, makes it fall into the category of unaffordable for me!
>>>>Great idea. Love the concept. Have cut both thumbs numerous times,
>>>>and definitely appreciate the value of such a device. Unfortunately,
>>>>$3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is also unfortunate
>>>>that it will most likely become "required equipment"
>>>
>>>Once it does, the price will drop as competition and volume bring the
>>>prices down. Probably new technology too. It is the end of the cheap
>>>$99 saw though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Heck, I just gave up on my
>>>>old pre catalytic converter vehicle. Darn things just add more
>>>>expense to an already expensive item! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Ever go to one of the car cruises like we have every summer weekend?
>>>Those pre-cat cars may be a thing of beauty, but they sure do stink. I
>>>cannot imagine how we survived the 50's and 60's breathing all that
>>>crap.
>>
>> We followed them at wider distances and at lower rates of speed then,
>> Ed.
>
>Lower rates of speed??? The max speed on the Mass Pike in the early 70's
>was 75MPH, IIRC.

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

In article
<fd38826a-3c8d-48b7-9a07-5dd760d7a226@t16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> This was Stanley Tools MO for decades. Engulf and devour. They'd buy
> competing companies, keep some products or throw the entire company
> away as it was the easiest way to bury the competition, particularly
> with companies that had patents and good products.

Obviously where Bill Gates learned his business model.

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> You're probably both right. Although I do believe (I'm a retired
> biochemist) that the duty of a lawyer is first and foremost to his
> client, so that (within the law) he should make his client look as
> pristine and innocent as possible and make the opposition look like the
> worst possible human/corporation/whatever.

Correct. After all, consider the lawyer who has to defend a murderer and
try to convince a jury that, despite all the evidence, his client is
innocent, when he knows he is not.

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

Larry wrote:

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

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:17:25 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:49:26 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>...
>>
>>> I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
>>> testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
>>...
>>
>>_EXTREMELY_ unlikely US Supreme Court would even agree to hear such a
>>case imo...
>
>The ACLU should be all over Gass for attempting to take away the civil
>liberties of people and companies.

ACLU Companies? Shirley, you jest.

On 20 Nov 2011 20:32:16 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:00:30 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Ever go to one of the car cruises like we have every summer weekend?
>>>Those pre-cat cars may be a thing of beauty, but they sure do stink. I
>>>cannot imagine how we survived the 50's and 60's breathing all that
>>>crap.
>>
>> We followed them at wider distances and at lower rates of speed then,
>> Ed.
>
>Lower rates of speed??? The max speed on the Mass Pike in the early 70's
>was 75MPH, IIRC.

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

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

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:48:20 -0600, Just Wondering
>> deep shit. Just ask anyone who's been foreclosed on.
>>
>That's when you might want a good bankruptcy attorney.

Catch 22 don't you think? You don't have the money for your mortgage,
so it's foreclosed on. If that happened, then it's highly unlikely
you're going to find the money for a good bankruptcy attorney.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:48:12 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
> From what I've seen (on tv), lots of people who get foreclosed on plan
>for it months in advance, accumulating the money they "saved". That
>way, they have the means to move into an apartment once they are evicted..

I guess that makes sense. If someone realizes they can't meet their
payment schedule, they might just stop payments altogether and save
what they can until they're kicked out.

Leon wrote:
> On 10/9/2011 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 4:18 pm, "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby
>>>> saving $100 or so on the false positives.
>>>>
>>>> Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the
>>>> blade guard and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...
>>>
>>> That should be just about as effective as clipping a couple of wires
>>> inside your computer to circumvent Windows registration. Sheesh.
>>
>> I said it "might" be as simple as clipping a couple of wires.
>> Defeating the saw stop may require buying an add-on electronic
>> module or maybe just removing the whole mechanism.
>>
>>>
>>> BTW, who exactly is "defeating" the SawStop? A business? An
>>> individual?
>>>
>>> Let's see how that works...
>>> "Oh, I'm soooo sorry for you accident, Mr. HeyRube, but we at
>>> Northwest South Federal Insurance and Bowling have investigated the
>>> situation and since you "defeated" the safety mechanism, you're shit
>>> out of luck. Would you be interested in adding your autos to your
>>> insurance policy?"
>>
>> And how does that conversation differ from one that would take place
>> after the owner removes the blade guard/splitter? Removing blade
>> guards is quite common; I've never seen a table saw in use (or for
>> sale on Craigslist) that had it's blade guard in place.
>>
>> My impression is that neither conversation would take place because
>> the saw owner realizes the cause of the injury is entirely his.
>>
>>
>
>
> That is pretty rich and explains your non founded hard on against
> SawStop. You want to buy a premium saw and disable it's best feature.

SawStop turns even an economy saw into a "premium priced" saw.

On 21 Nov 2011 04:37:22 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So, explain to me why the owner of the sawstop patent is
>>> involved in a lawsuit against Ryobi unless it was greed.
>>> If the product was so damn good it would sell itself and
>>> he wouldn't need to bother with Ryobi. Go ahead, I'll
>>> wait...
>>>
>>
>> So - anyone who is interested in profit - regardless of the
>> amount of that profit is motivated by greed? Perhaps he is
>> - I don't know, because I don't know the guy. What he is
>> doing is fairly commonplace in the world - why this
>> disproportionate ire over sawstop?

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


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

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


>It's not about how much money he's making, it's about the
>methods he's trying to use to make it (see quote at the bottom).
>He came up with an invention that based on cost most people
>won't buy. So instead he lobbies to get laws passed requiring
>the use of his invention.
>http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ballot/ballot06/TableSaws.pdf
>
>The plantiff admitted he was using the saw with the guard and
>fence removed, sounding as though he was free handing his cuts.
>How about some personal responsibility? You stick your finger in
>a table saw you lose a finger. If you choose to purchase a
>product that prevents that from happening, good for you, I'm
>sure you'll be happy with it.
>
>Admittedly there have been many improvements in products that
>make them safer, some probably as a result of litigation such as
>this case (stupidity, plain and clear). It's also costing us an
>enormous amount of money for the government to babysit everyone
>that isn't smart enough to survive on their own. Product
>liability is a huge financial drain on everyone. The only
>winners are a few victims and a lot of attorneys.

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


>If there wasn't a victim involved, personally, it would thrill
>me to see the first failure of the SawStop mechanism. Maybe he'd
>have a different point of view when the shoe's on the other
>foot.
>
>"Stephen Gass, the inventor of the SawStop technology that
>safety advocates would like to see on table saws, has retained
>Pamela Gilbert, a former executive director at the CPSC, to
>lobby for a saw safety rule that could help make Gass wealthy.
>Gass, of Tualatin, Ore., paid Gilbert $20,000 over a two-month
>period in the first quarter of the year."
>
>Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/new-rules-for-
>table-saws-sought-to-cut-amputations-052511#ixzz1eJ8zOh00

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

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

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:15:19 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:54:26 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Why isn't lobbying illegal, or at least pursued as influence peddling,
>>> yet? <sigh>
>>
>> Because we have "the best government money can buy".
>>
>> That's where the Occupy Wall Street folks are missing the boat. I'm sure
>> they have a long list of things they'd like to change. I'd probably
>> approve of some and not others. But unless we get money out of politics
>> none of their changes (or mine, or yours) are likely to occur.
>>
>> And getting that done has the chance of the proverbial snowflake.
>>
>
>All it requires is that we Throw The Bastards Out and repeat until we get
>what we want. Getting everyone to agree on what we want and that your own
>Bastard is not OK is the problem.

I saw a wonderful billboard on the trip to CA this week. It said

"Vote them ALL out"

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

On Oct 9, 5:51=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> >On 10/9/2011 11:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> =A0 =A0Does not need to be soaking wet. Had one go off at the woodwork=
ing
> >> club when a guy had wiped down a peice of wood to accentuate the grain
> >> so he cood see which side he wanted to be "exposed. He wiped it with a
> >> damp rag, put it into the saw, and BANG!!!!!!
>
> >Sounds like the saw worked as designed. =A0Was there much rust on the TS
> >top after that experiment?
>
> Nope, the table top was always protected with a good coat of
> boe-sheild - which APPARENTLY is not an insulator.

But what about the inside of the saw? The hidden parts that are
coated with a absorbent layer of sawdust sponge would be the real
problem. Then again - that's one way to keep the dust down - mist
it! ;)

R

On Oct 8, 1:50=A0pm, Gerald Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws for
> occasional users like me. =A0I still have my hand saws.

They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
"carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.

There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.

Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
be double that...if you live that long. ;)

R

Leon wrote:
>>
>> SawStop turns even an economy saw into a "premium priced" saw.
>
> That is why you would disable the safety feature???

No, I would avoid it altogether.

>
> And as far as whether you consider it a premium priced saw or not, I
> don't think it does. That is strictly a personal preference call. If
> you don't want to spend the money, buy a used saw or buy the saw you
> want now in the event that this is required in the future. Or wait
> and see.

Answer me this: Wouldn't a sliding table result in the same number - or
close thereto - of reduced accidents as a SawStop?

How many manufacturers provide a crosscut for their economy saws - even at
extra cost?

Here's one for a Delta that costs as much as a SawStop
http://www.amazon.com/DELTA-34-555-Sliding-Table-Attachment/dp/B00002235P

Or, you can build your own for ten bucks
http://www.thewoodshop.20m.com/howto_crosscut.htm

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:58:08 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 10/10/2011 8:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> No, CONGRESS is why jobs are scattering to the winds. It's just too
>>> hard to make things here. ...and getting much worse.
>>
>> Well, you're right - if you're talking about regulations and such.
>>
>> Another blame to put on Congress is the excessive corporate tax, currently
>> 2nd highest in the world. This encourages corporations to move their jobs -
>> and make their profits - overseas. If not for the tax, they'd keep their
>> corporate headquarters here and distribute their overseas profits amongst
>> their domestic stockholders.
>
>You forgetting about high manufacturing costs to do business here? It's
>not just the taxes.

High wages (especially managerial) and perks (paid healthcare, month
of vacation, weeks of sick leave, etc.) skew the figures horribly,
too, especially if unions are involved.

--
Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Oct 8, 2:40=A0pm, Richard <[email protected]> wrote:

Good catch!

> I believe Mark swiped that thought from Shakespear...
>

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:47:08 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 10/12/2011 1:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:21:24 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2011 3:21 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2011 6:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> THERE IS NO MORAL FOUNDATION IN LEGAL TRAINING.
>>>>
>>>> That's not accurate. There is a whole area of law based on equity, which
>>>> basically resolves disputes based on what is fair. For example, a
>>>> contract claim may fail because there was no contract, but an injured
>>>> party could still recover for unjust enrichment. Or a property claim
>>>> could fail because of title defects, but the injured party might still
>>>> have a claim based on equitable title. Or a law-based claim may be
>>>> successfully defended against on estoppel, laches, and other equitable
>>>> defenses.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful sounding, but total BS when, in the practice of law, lawyers
>>> routinely abuse the judicial system as part of their business model. :(
>>>
>>> Indeed, law schools ingrain the blurring of the distinctions between
>>> what is moral, ethical, etc. and what is LEGAL, but immoral, unethical, etc.
>>>
>>> 27.9% interest is USURY by any _moral_ yardstick/definition ... but is
>>> indeed LEGAL, as routinely practiced by banks/credit card companies.
>>
>> How much of that debt that is at 27.9% is _never_ paid back?
>
>How much IS paid back???

The point being that high interest rates reflect high risk.

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
>> stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
>> http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1824P-01A.pdf
>
> As Mark Twain and others have said, "First, we shoot all the lawyers"

I believe Mark swiped that thought from Shakespear...

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
(2 Henry VI, 4.2.59), Butcher to Jack Cade


>
> I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
> testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
>
> John

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:28:40 -0500, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:32:26 -0400, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at
>comcast dot net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> Before using any dangerous tool it's good to think; "now if this
>>> falls...".
>>> It's really no different than thinking about where a knife is about to go
>>> if
>>> it slips.
>>
>>Same thing for blacksmiths. I was watching one work once and he told me he
>>dropped a piece of hot metal once and tried to catch it. It cured him of
>>that habit forever. To this day, if something falls in the house, he just
>>lets it fall. To the chagrin of his wife.
>
>I'll catch normal things. Not knives, of course.
I used to have a bad habit, as an apprentice mechanic, of sticking
my foot out to catch a dropped wrench etc, so it wouldn't skittar way
across the floor. One afternoon I went in to change the tanks on the
torch in regular shoes and the big two stage brass regulator slipped
from my hand.

That cured me of sticking my foot out to catch things!!!!!!

Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

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

He was subpoenaed? From the judgment,
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1824P-01A.pdf

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

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

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

-- Doug

On Oct 9, 12:11=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> =A0 I used to have a bad habit, as an apprentice mechanic, of sticking
> my foot out to catch a dropped wrench etc, so it wouldn't skittar way
> across the floor. One afternoon I went in to change the tanks on the
> torch in regular shoes and the big two stage brass regulator slipped
> from my hand.
>
> That cured me of sticking my foot out to catch things!!!!!!

That's funny. I remember doing the same thing - sticking out my foot
to break the fall of the inanimate object. I don't recall when I
stopped doing that, but I'm sure it was an ouch! moment that did the
trick.

R

On Oct 9, 2:09=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 10/9/2011 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> > RicodJour wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 4:18 pm, "HeyBub"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >>> Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby
> >>> saving $100 or so on the false positives.
>
> >>> Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the
> >>> blade guard and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...
>
> >> That should be just about as effective as clipping a couple of wires
> >> inside your computer to circumvent Windows registration. =A0Sheesh.
>
> > I said it "might" be as simple as clipping a couple of wires. Defeating=
the
> > saw stop may require buying an add-on electronic module or maybe just
> > removing the whole mechanism.
>
> >> BTW, who exactly is "defeating" the SawStop? =A0A business? =A0An
> >> individual?
>
> >> Let's see how that works...
> >> "Oh, I'm soooo sorry for you accident, Mr. HeyRube, but we at
> >> Northwest South Federal Insurance and Bowling have investigated the
> >> situation and since you "defeated" the safety mechanism, you're shit
> >> out of luck. =A0Would you be interested in adding your autos to your
> >> insurance policy?"
>
> > And how does that conversation differ from one that would take place af=
ter
> > the owner removes the blade guard/splitter? Removing blade guards is qu=
ite
> > common; I've never seen a table saw in use (or for sale on Craigslist) =
that
> > had it's blade guard in place.
>
> > My impression is that neither conversation would take place because the=
saw
> > owner realizes the cause of the injury is entirely his.
>
> That is pretty rich and explains your non founded hard on against
> SawStop. =A0You want to buy a premium saw and disable it's best feature.

No, no, no. You misunderstand him. He does not want to _buy_ a
premium saw, he just wants to bitch about it. ;)

R

On Monday, October 10, 2011 6:35:41 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
> >

> > Really no need to sell it to the industry, SawStop is selling more than
> > it's share of TS's by a wide margin.
>
> If there's "no need to sell it to the industry" then why is there a need
> to regulate the industry into buying it?

Depends on WHOSE needs one wishes to meet.

Unsafe or careless users of saws ...
Woodsaw manufacturers who don't have any technology that
could replace Gass's patent,....
Gass and Sawstop ...
Institutions with responsibility-for-people issues (schools, insurers)...
Folk who have good safety habits and see no problems...

So, whose needs are most vital in the minds of CPSC? I'm
thinking that 'unsafe or careless users' demand most of their attention.
That's because they look at consumer safety, naturally.
Twisted boards, loose knots, guards removed and 'too fiddly'
to replace... there's lots of learning to do before one is ready to
use a tablesaw safely.

The statistics that guide CPSC are all about the folk who learn
the hard way. I know and love some of those kind of
people: think of the children.

On 10/11/2011 11:29 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> You forgetting about high manufacturing costs to do business here? It's
>> not just the taxes.
>
> Er, not exactly. Last year, BMW built 110,000 cars in its Spartanburg, S.C.
> plant and EXPORTED them. Toyota builds cars in Tennessee and ships them to
> Japan!
>
> Our manufacturing costs are not necessarily greater than foreign plants
> because we use so much more automation in some industries.
>
> Like automobiles.
>
> Shoes, not so much.
>
>

those are particular examples that the unions don't have a strangle hold
on the manufacturer. But look at power tools and computer components,
and electronics in general.

"Osorio largely relied on the testimony of his witness, Dr.
Stephen Gass, inventor of "SawStop,"

Neat trick. You invent something, can't sell it to the industry, so
you get people to sue in hopes of forcing industry to adopt your
product/design. Then again, it just may have been a slick attorney
that turned Gass onto this idea. We may start seeing Ambulance Chasers
advertising on This Old House!

Ah, America . . .

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:32:26 -0400, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at
comcast dot net> wrote:

>
>
><[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Before using any dangerous tool it's good to think; "now if this
>> falls...".
>> It's really no different than thinking about where a knife is about to go
>> if
>> it slips.
>
>Same thing for blacksmiths. I was watching one work once and he told me he
>dropped a piece of hot metal once and tried to catch it. It cured him of
>that habit forever. To this day, if something falls in the house, he just
>lets it fall. To the chagrin of his wife.

I'll catch normal things. Not knives, of course.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:00:30 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:30:09 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Once again the law is being used, for purposes of greed, to prevent a useful
>>product from practical application. I don't know about the rest of you, but
>>adding such a huge required expense to an average table saw, makes it fall
>>into the category of unaffordable for me! Great idea. Love the concept. Have
>>cut both thumbs numerous times, and definitely appreciate the value of such
>>a device. Unfortunately, $3,500 puts it nicely out of my price range. It is
>>also unfortunate that it will most likely become "required equipment"
>
>Once it does, the price will drop as competition and volume bring the
>prices down. Probably new technology too. It is the end of the cheap
>$99 saw though.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Heck, I just gave up on my
>>old pre catalytic converter vehicle. Darn things just add more expense to an
>>already expensive item! :)
>
>
>Ever go to one of the car cruises like we have every summer weekend?
>Those pre-cat cars may be a thing of beauty, but they sure do stink. I
>cannot imagine how we survived the 50's and 60's breathing all that
>crap.

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

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

On Oct 8, 12:31=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:


> I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
> testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
>
> John

Hard for that to happen as the issue was not raised in the appeal. The
Court cannot rule on aspects of the rial not raisd in the appeals
themselves. (I think, not a lawyer spokesperson)

On Oct 8, 6:30=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] says...
>
> > In a nutshell. =A0The SawStop guy came out swinging from the get go, th=
e
> > manufacturer's balked, and it's moved on to the next round. =A0Too earl=
y
> > to tell who the winner will be, but I wouldn't bet against the guy
> > with the deepest pockets.
>
> Merceces-Benz licenses their antiskid braking patents at no charge (or
> did while they were still in force, they may be expired now). =A0If Mr.
> Sawstop was really all that interested in preventing injury instead of
> lining his own pockets he'd do the same.

ABS were first used in airplanes in the 30's or 40's. Chrysler had
anti-skid technology in the early 70's. Bosch and Mercedes
collaborated in the late 70's and MB rolled them out in the 80's. Not
quite the same thing as having a totally unique technology. I'd also
be very interested to see where they gave away their technology when
there were already competing technologies out there. That's not the
purpose of a patent and it makes no sense from any angle. I did a
quick search but couldn't find anything about it - do you have a link
that I could check out?

Please don't attribute some moral lapse in not taking the high road to
a guy that all the major manufacturer's told to get lost. Anyone
would have a bone to pick with them in that situation, and now he's
set on making his point and teaching them a lesson. After all - he's
a LAWYER. Lawyer's don't necessarily differentiate between making
money and doing good. They're not automatically mutually exclusive.

As far as Gass' position, I could see him negotiating downwards once
the regulations come out. It would be in his best interests to make
the money while he can as numerous billion dollar companies can afford
to lawyer-spank anybody. And it would be in the major players
interest to avoid lawyer fees and work with existing proven technology
instead of losing time in development.

R

Jack wrote:


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

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]