This is so cool! A 'safety' table saw that detects your finger.

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

> I do however think that if the SawStop
> is not your cup of tea to not bash the product and technology because of
> what you may or may not think of the company that is marketing it.

I've seen people bash the company marketing it, but not the product and
technology. The only negative comment I've seen on the product is that
it's over-priced, which in all fairness is true.

The company marketing it, OTOH, deserves what bashing they get, IMO.

--
Talking about art is like dancing about architecture - Frank Zappa

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

> What about the nanny-state that mandates the airbags in your car, that
> requires you to carry insurance on your car.

You don't have passengers on your table saw, nor do you run your saw
into other people operating other saws.

The analogy simply doesn't hold, Leon.

--
Talking about art is like dancing about architecture - Frank Zappa

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> It seems right now that they are charging around $4000 for the saw when
you
> can buy a unisaur for around $1800 so the saw stop option basically is
over
> $2000 right now. It seems like this is sawstop's main problem.

Well, taking into account from Sawstop's desire to make a profit, I'd be
interested to know what expense their added technology costs when applied to
a tablesaw. It's almost a given that they are following the same rule that
the drug companies use. Charge to recoup their reseach costs and charge
because no one else has it. I guess all those questions will be answered a
few years after the patent runs out and we see if and how many other
companies adopt sawstop type technology. (That's assuming during the years
leading up that point that the sawstop is still a viable technology)

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

> I think that most of these guys who are objecting to this "technology"
> are like me, tired of being protected from themselves. It seems that
> safety requirements are based upon the assumption that everyone using a
> vehicle, or any other machinery which may cause injury or death if
> misused, is an imbecile incapable of using "common sense".

Spot on. I think the technology is amazing, and I'm all for it. I
object to the tactics of the company in trying to force their
*patented* technology on the marketplace.

--
Talking about art is like dancing about architecture - Frank Zappa

In article <[email protected]>, Brian
Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yeah, if they're so concerned about safety, how about they give up
> their *patent* and just provide the technology, free of charge, to the
> saw manufacturers?

I'd rather they just offer a reasonably priced licence to other
manufacturers, and see what the market uptake is.

--
Talking about art is like dancing about architecture - Frank Zappa

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> Down at the sausage factory we no longer make links, but extrude one huge
> sausage and cut it to length on the table saw. Production was up and we
> made a lot of money so we bought some new saws from a company called Saw
> Stop. Looked like a good product, but we've been having a lot of failures
> every time we cut a sausage. What are we doing wrong?
>
>
Cook ALL the moisture out of them before cutting them and see if that
helps. (You might have to look in the Business to Business phone book to
find an oven long enough to hold their entire length...nothing comes
easily...) <g>

Dave

I checked into the Sawstop saw when I was looking for a new cabinet
saw. About $3500 delivered to Pennsylvania.

Bryan

It's ok Jack, some people have issues. I have a SawStop TS and I'm
quite happy with it. I may not agree with all their ideals (we must
require everyone buy our technology) but they make a very nice saw. I
justified the price (~4000 including extension table, 5HP motor, and
shipping) by the fact that as a software developer, losing the use of
my hand, even temporarily would seriously interfer with my work. And
the cost of a single injury could well outweigh the cost of the saw.
I'm still cautious when working with it as the technology is not
failsafe, but if I scrwe up, it's there.

C'mon guys. This thread is losing steam. MORE! MORE! MORE!

It was just getting good! In just 3 -4 posts (depending on how you
count) it has gone from saws to profanity, insulting the OP, plonking,
pissing on the US about our citizenry, sarcasm (although pretty weak
here), lots of bad grammar, spelling and vocabulary lessons, etc.

I think this sombitch should get at least to 100 posts or so before you
can be proud of it.

I am falling out of my chair with laughter at how fast this one went
astray from the innocent, wide eyed noob's post of "have you seen
this?" That will teach him to ask a question where he's not wanted!

Robert

The saw is a very interesting concept and I would consider it amongst
others if I were in the market for a new saw. Thank you for bringing it
up. Good for the company trying to increase there market share. Good
for the government not mandating the use. Being a new number of this
group I cant say that I am impressed. For the original author of this
tread to be blamed because the topic had allready been discussed is
poor at best. Do I need to research a topic before throwing it out to
this group to see if it had been talked about last year? Swearing, name
calling, and politics etc need to be eliminated somehow. The
woodturning group and others that I've seen dont have this stuff going
on. Is it because there list Mom throws them off? Maybe. Is there a
woodworking group that talks woodworking without trying to one up each
other? Please tell me so I can switch groups. Granted that its a small
amount of imature people that I question, but to have a higher level of
discussion the garbage needs to go. Is there a way to set rules and
abide by them? Happy woodworking to all.

henry wrote:

<< Do I need to research a topic before throwing it out to
this group to see if it had been talked about last year? Swearing, name

calling, and politics etc need to be eliminated somehow. The
woodturning group and others that I've seen dont have this stuff going
on. >>

You should. If the right guys get to the message first, you will be OK
with your questions. If some of the regulars that consider this their
personal forum get to you first you will bet blasted with sarcasm, and
made to be felt like an idiot. They talk to people in mean, arrogant
way that would certainly get them bitch slapped silly if they did it to
another man in person. But internet anonyminity makes everyone here
pretty courageous.

There are a lot of talented people here, professional and hobby guys,
and most of them only lurk since the current tone of the group is as
you see can be dicey. It comes and goes. But the more it changes, the
more it stays the same. After a while, some go away, some new folks
come on board. The group seems a little nastier than usual now,
though.

But some leave with great fanfare, have an online pity party on their
own behalf right here, and lament the unfairness of how they are
treated for being a fountain of knowledge. It is hilarious. Those
wackers never stay gone for more than a month or so as no one else
wants listen to their baloney in person. So they bravely come back,
like watching Oprah, they decided to bravely try again to get share
their knowledge and experience and "not let the bastards get them
down". These are guys that just love too much, I guess.

While there are a lot of really nice folks here that are really helpful
(Mike Marlow just spent some great effort to help me with paint
spraying) the highest and best use of this group is now and probably
will always be the archives.

If you spend any time here at all, you will notice that by far and away
the longest threads with most participation are the most negative,
petty, and venal of the postings. Searching the archives make this
really easy to get around.

If you have a real time question to ask you should be ready for
anything, as you see on this thread. I would encourage you to ask
away, but be ready for the snotty sarcasm from those a little that have
that tiny fragment of information that they think makes them a genius.


I would encourage you to go to a moderated forum if you don't like the
wide open format here, as the kids indeed do play nicer because Dad (or
Mom) will blank the sarcastic, ugly, profane or off topic responses.
You can try woodweb, woodcentral, and a few others out there for a
forum atmosphere, but this is a public forum so "it is what it is".

Robert

Leon wrote:
> Umm This has been discussed time and time again in the last 3 or so years.
>
> The general consensus is that most every one here would rather not buy the
> saw for personal reasons. About 10% here think it is a great idea also.

I daresay it more like ony about 10% think it is NOT a great idea.

The personal reasons why we haven't all bought one include price,
objections to the 'marketing method' described elswhere in this
thread, and concern about false positives, e.g. tripping when not
necessary. If it were cheap, works as advertized (which it may)
and was available from a variety of vendors there would be no
rational objections ot it, so only the irrational would object to
having one.

The 10% who do NOT think it is a good idea are probably the same
guys who think fuses and circuit breakers are a bad idea and
probably save old bronze pennies to use in theirs.

--

FF

mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net wrote:
> Okay, I watched the video and all I could say was "WOW!". This saw is
> probably fairly expensive. Besides, I have a nice one and am always
> very careful.
>
> http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-videos.htm
>
> But it only takes one mistake to lose a finger. Click on the link and
> watch the videos linked on the site. It's amazing. I have to ask - is
> this for real or is this some kind of high tech joke?
>
> Has anyone else seen this machine before?

Oh, gee, no, nobody has ever discussed that machine here before

:-)

Dave Balderstone informed:

<[email protected]> wrote:
>> But internet anonyminity makes everyone here >
>> pretty courageous.


>Including you...

>Some of us actually post under our real names, BTW.

Well, shit. I please call my sainted Mother and ask her why she has
been calling me Robert for the last 50 years. According to my Dad,
naming me that was her idea, so she probably knows the truth.

Now help me out here. WTF should I tell my Mom (if she isn't behind
this) when I tell her Robert isn't my real name? Should I stop putting
it at the end of every post?

>>>> ROBERT <<<<<
(for those reading impaired)

Dave Balderstone informed:

<[email protected]> wrote:
>> But internet anonyminity makes everyone here >
>> pretty courageous.


>Including you...

>Some of us actually post under our real names, BTW.

Well, shit. Please call my sainted Mother and ask her why she has been
calling me Robert for the last 50 years. According to my Dad, naming
me that was her idea, so she probably knows the truth.

Now help me out here. WTF should I tell my Mom (if she isn't behind
this) when I tell her Robert isn't my real name? Should I stop putting
it at the end of every post?

>>>> ROBERT <<<<<
(for those reading impaired)

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>>> ROBERT <<<<<
> > (for those reading impaired)
>
> Yeah, right. What's your last name?
>

WTF do you care? Do you want to call him up in the wee hours of
the morning as spammers have done when they know who is sending
complaints to their ISP?

If you have a complaint about a UseNet article, you can complain to
the ISP through which it was posted and they can consult their
logs to determine whose account is responsible. They can do that
no matter what username is being used by the author.

An ISP that refuses to act on legitimate abuse complaints about
an account with a username that is a first name only, nickname
only, or an alias, will ALSO refuse to take action if the username
is the person's true legal name, don't you think?

Suppose >>>> ROBERT <<<<< actually 'signed' his articles
>>>> ROBERT FUBAR <<<<, what difference would that make?

Besides, with but a modicum of cleverness, >>>> ROBERT <<<<<
could 'sign' his articles 'Dave Balderstone'. Which is why *I*
post under an alias.

Mind the line-wrap:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&num=100&q=Ian_St_John+CHILD+MOLESTER&safe=off&qt_s=Search&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1994&as_maxd=28&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=1999

--

FF

Dave Balderstone quoted and replied:

>>> WTF do you care?

>I don't. I wasn't the one who made the comment about anonymity making
>people brave.

Well, now I am really confused. You don't care, but you had to ask
anyway. Just nosy?

Since I didn't post anything that required any kind of internet branded
bravery, I can only assume you want my name for your Christmas list....
or maybe a long walk in the moonlight. So let me give you some real
info about me. Let's not get hung up on names... I don't even care if
Dave isn't your real name...

For my birthday, I would like nice steak and a good cabernet. Some
roses would be nice too, you rascal. Gift certificates are always
nice... I'm pretty easy to get along with.

And I did catch your earlier explusion of disbelief:

><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>> ROBERT <<<<<
>> (for those reading impaired)


>Yeah, right.

I checked with Mom, and big guy, it is indeed Robert. Whew!

I hope that doesn't mean I am off the Christmas card list.

Robert (for real!)

Swingman wrote:

<<True capitalism is based on enlightened self interest, with a healthy
dose
of moral rectitude required. >>


Here, here. I am a dyed in the wool capitalist, but I do charity work
when I can. I like money and some of the things it can buy, but I
don't covet it. Our current culture seems to thing that capitalism is
bad... especially if they haven't found financial success.

The self employed plumber that is a one man shop is just as much
capitalist as someone like Ken Lay. Without "moral rectitude", you can
see however where Ken Lay has landed along with his cohorts. But the
plumber that feels like he can work harder, smarter, in a more clever
fashion with less waste sees capitalism as a way to get ahead. Respect
for money and the system that allows you to make it is part of
capitalism.

In my reading, too many times the examples I see about how bad and
unfair capitalism is to society is simple confusion about lack of
ethics or integrity in the case when people have money. Lack of ethics
or integrity used to get more money (or anything else) is called
"greed". Capitalism is a system, a type of economic methodology. It
is nothing else; if one wants to be greedy and get more money by
underhanded means, this is not "capitalism". It is avarice.

Strangely, the same system that Sawstop used (an attempt to get ahead
and win economic advantage) was the same system that shut down that
effort. The "I'm not gonna pay for it, you can't make me pay for it,
I'll cut my fingers off first" is a true sign
of capitalism at work. A choice of perceived >value< was made and it
ended the effort.

Hopefully, the questions of "how much would that cost change the
manufacturing processes?" and "how much would it add to the cost?" On
top of that, if it added too much $$$ to the bottom line to implement
the govt. monitoring of the new Sawstop program, I am sure the folks
listening didn't want hear more bitching and court cases about how
unfair it was that one group owned the technology. Besidie, where
would the money come from to implement and monitor these changes? A
tax increase? Then the thinking has to come down to, "how many of
those woodworkers are actually my constitients that would make me want
to increase taxes, and then listen to me get skewered as a pork barrel
politician?"

And just maybe.. maybe.. one of the nitwits in Washington that listened
to their pitch was able to see what was going on. You may have to just
go with me on that last one. Personally, I don't know how far this
effort got since I have never even met or talked to anyone that knew
when it was presented to Congress in any way.

And I am wondering how far it actually got. After all, I don't recall
anyone here regaling us with tales of their soirre to Washington to
fight the Sawstop campaign. I never signed a petition from angry
woodworkers to stop Sawstop or their nefarious campaign; I never heard
of any grassroots movement to stop them by an angry citizenry of
woodworkers made up of "the common man". A lot of pissed off people
here that don't like Sawstop or capitalism, but I never saw them on the
news "speaking out" against the Sawstop conspiracy.

But just like Homer Simpson says, it is >fun< to strike a blow against
the man. It may not amount to much, and you may not have actually done
anything but talk about it. But it is fun. I think a lot are just as
like the guy in the new Sprint commercial that is "sticking it to the
man".

Robert

Upscale wrote:

<<Ahh, but that could never happen. If your saw tripped falsely 30
times,
you'd have hung yourself long before then.>>

HAH! No kiddin'!.

On another note, I going to have to remember the logic in this thread
when one of these guys has his teenage kiddo (who has used all tools
since birth under strict supervision) whack off a finger due to a lapse
in judgement. Or when one of the guys gets his shirt caught in a
machine and it yanks him in (I am thinking of those farmers that have
lost arms, etc. that I used to feel sorry for; now, set straight by
this group I think they may have deserved it), or maybe in a crowded
shop someone trips and falls on the machine. I will then post this
thread so you can remember that you don't need additional protection,
and if you or yours did something to yourself by accident, you may have
deserved it.

I think that some are forgetting that professionals that use tools all
day long get tired, but still have to work. They are sick, but still
need to pay bills. You get tired, and in a Cinderella world, you go
home and rest. But in the real world, deadlines loom. And the more
tired you are, the more mistakes you make and the more accident prone
you are. There is also the probablility of scale. Dinking around in
your garage screwing with the tools when it isn't football season,
holidays, family birthdays, anniversaries and on an on it not the same
as doing work with machinery all day long, day in and day out.

Not everyone is some hobby guy working in half his garage when his wife
lets him make a box or two for the grandkids, or put up a new shelf as
a weekend project. If you use tools enough, you will get hurt.
Period.

I think the saw is properly positioned in the market place. If you
don't need it or want it, you don't have to buy it. What a concept.
And those that do, can. And since some like the concept, that doesn't
make them some kind of candy assed weenie. I would probably have them
if I did more cabinets since I would feel better about they guys
working with a table saw with a blade brake.

Many years ago I saw a young man slip on the concrete (clean by the
way, it was an accident) while he was ripping MDF for new formica tops.
He was at the end of the rip so he was pushing the 16" wide piece from
the back, and in that position he thought he was going to go head first
in the saw. He got both hands out to stop himself, but one came up a
finger short. We finally found the finger, but at that time they were
unable to connect anything more than the vessels, so it shrank up some
after they sewed it on, but never worked right again. I know, I know.
He never should have slipped in the first place.

And here's the topper for those that are worried about the cost. Since
they reported have the brake problems all worked out, if you never
stick your hot dog in the damn blade, it will never fire off, and you
will never ruin your blade or the brake shoe. Just like I tell the
guys that work for me, learn to keep your hot dog out of trouble and
you will be a lot safer and happier. Wait... maybe it wasn't actually
a hot dog when I was talking to them...

Robert

Swingman wrote:

>>The reality is that now that the technology is commercially available it
will be difficult to legally defend an employer who doesn't take
advantage
of it to protect employees from the certainty that accidents happen.
And
insurance risk managers will be mandating it, if they are not already
doing
so.

So, in effect, even if some don't want it, they may not have really a
choice
... a slick position for the patent holder. <<

Sage words, indeed. As a veteran business man yourself, you KNOW this
is coming sooner or later. I don't think it is around the corner, but
soon. And the inventor will profit accordingly until the Chiwanese
come up with their own reverse engineered version.

Many years ago I was totally annoyed by the fact that some circular saw
makers decided to put blade brakes on their saws. I was pissed off a
the fact that the saw would jerk so hard at the end of the cut it would
yank itself around on the work. I understood the intent a lot better
after having the blade guard hang open while cutting some splintery
stuff. I set the saw down and it skittered across the concrete and
rolled over my foot. Going to fast, it didn't do anything but scare
the living crap out of me. In my mind at that point it was clear why
someone would want a blade brake. They still aren't prevalent, but
most manufacturers at least off a circular saw with the blade brake.

Look at miter saws - I think they all have blade brakes now. No
telling how many digits have been saved by that introduction. And
cordless drills - does anyone make one anymore that doesn't? I wonder
how many injuries have been averted by those?

The good news is that we still have a choice. Anyone can do anything
that they want with their saw right now, and I am sure that when they
are widely introduced that it will be mandatory for the civil rights
militia to immediately figure out and post instructions on how to
defeat the system. Much like some used to roll up their seatbelts and
stick them in the separation of the bench to back inside the car.

Then their lives can go on unfettered by another safety device that was
obviously designed for someone else.

Robert

Leon.... buddy.... let it go.

I learned a long time ago that people will do as they will. If the
technology is available to make woodworking or anything else we have in
our lives safer for me and you, then we will probably use it when we
find we need to or when we can make sense of the timing, dollars, and
need.

I intend to take woodworking into retirement. However, I am no so
stupid as to believe that in my 70s I will be as mentally sharp or
physically capable as I am now. I would like that additional safety of
knowing that if I have a senior moment, or a twinge in a joint at an
inopportune time I won't lose a digit to one of my tools. I know you
feel the same way.

Other impairments are on me now, though. I get too tired meeting
deadlines, try to do too many things at once, and take for granted what
I am doing sometimes and don't pay close enough attention. I
understand what the intellectuals of the group collective are saying,
too... no such thing as an accident... all "accidents are
preventable"... if you can't do any better than that perhaps you
shouldn't be using tools... etc. Heard it all before. Truly, in a
perfect textbook world, they are correct.

However, in my world reality raises its ugly head on occasion. Shit
happens. My fault, your fault, nobody's fault, it happens. But no
matter where the fault lies, I am pissed off when the results fall on
me. So a little cushion sounds really good to me.

I don't care about the SawStop conspiracy or the attempt on their part
to change the course of my life. We can see how far that got. So now
we are where we should be, if you want the technology, buy it. If you
don't, don't do it.

I have many years of watching people follow poor safety protocols, or
none at all. They take off safety devices, blade guards, don't wear
safety glasses, don't wear respiratory protection, use broken ladders,
and do just plain stupid stuff. When they are hurt seriously for the
first time, it helps them understand the importance of safety and
safety devices. Until that time, they are bold mofos, loudly ready to
risk life and limb on prinicpal alone, standing the high ground on the
basis of their uninjured selves as examples.

Bully for them, I say. The Darwin awards are always looking for new
candidates. I don't care about the folks that don't want any safety
equipment or devices one way or another. Similarly, I don't care if
they are hurt when they disarm/remove/ignore the things that would make
their tool usage more safe under a larger variety of conditions.

Let 'em rip, Leon. (No pun intened...) You won't make or win your
point.

Robert

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Perhaps you do not see the need for more safety equipment but enough
> people did to warrant SawStop making the commitment to see this through.
>

We have yet to see the evidence of this. Did you buy one yet Leon?

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:09:25 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>No I mean every one that removes the guard and having accidents or not.
>Why would prople that bought a saw in particular for its safety feature
>disable it? It certainly does not get in the way or block you view when
>being used like the standard guard does? Why did you remove yours and
>replace it with an overhead guard?

Because we're not talking about people who go out and purposely buy
SawStops, we're talking about people who are forced to pay extra for a
piece of technology that they neither want, nor need. The fact that
every time the thing goes off, you're out $200. You don't think
people are going to disable that?

>Please. That is the primary reason that they and or any other business in
>business, to make mone first and formost.

Yup, and they want an entire industry to use *THEIR* technology. It
isn't a matter of them campaigning for *SOME* safety equipment, they
want everyone to be forced to use *THEIR* equipment.

This has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with making a buck.

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

> The general consensus is that most every one here would rather not buy the
> saw for personal reasons. About 10% here think it is a great idea also. It
> sells for about the same price of a Powermatic cabinet saw, so pricing is
> competitive considering all the features. Actual owners seem to be quite
> pleased with the saw although on occasion there have some misfires that were
> later corrected.

That's a fairly inaccurate description as far as I'm concerned.

I recall the discussions well. After the long period of "is this
vaporware or not?" the primary objection was to Sawstop lobbying to
make their technology mandatory in the USA.

I think the tech is superb. As an option.

--
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain.

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

> Well, for the past 18 months, I've been in NM. Before that, I was in
> NJ. And before that, we lived in Ohio for a couple year. And up until I
> was about 10, I was in upstate NY.
>
> Why do you ask?

When SawStop first announced their technology there was a long, long,
long discussion here about it. They tried lobbying the US gov't to make
their invention mandatory on table saws.

Many people objected to this.

Add to that the fact that they took forever to come up with an actual
saw that one could buy...

--
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain.

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

> So the tech would not be as good if it was mandated?

"Mandated" is not a word.

Mandate is a noun. Nouns do not have tenses.

What are you trying to say?

--
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain.

In article <[email protected]>, Scott
Cramer <[email protected]> wrote:

> A quick googling of "sawstop" brings your name up 290 times to Pete
> C.'s once. Check your own pants.

You owe me a keyboard!

LOL!

--
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain.

In article <QhtMf.51112$%[email protected]>, stoutman
<.@.> wrote:

> Wrong! It can also be a transitive verb.

That's happened in the last 20 years then. I suppose one day "unique"
will no longer be an absolute.

> Stick to making jigs.

Fuck you, too.

And for you, I make an exception to my "don't announce the plonks" rule
and announce... Plonk.

--
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain.

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

> Gee Dave I seldom resort to cursing because I generally know how to put into
> work what I want to say.

I assume you meant words rather than work... I generally only say what
I want to say, too. In this case I sincerely meant to say "Fuck you,
too".

I don't mind cursing if I REALLY mean it. Mostly, the people I want to
flip off aren't worth a curse, but you, Leon... You get the special
treatment.

Be proud.

--
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain.

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:43:57 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave***@balderstone.ca> wrote:

> I'd rather they just offer a reasonably priced licence to other
>manufacturers, and see what the market uptake is.

It won't happen though. They're not doing it to save fingers, they're
doing it to make money by force.

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

> Swearing, name
> calling, and politics etc need to be eliminated somehow.

You could always start a moderated group...

--
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain.

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

> But internet anonyminity makes everyone here
> pretty courageous.

Including you...

Some of us actually post under our real names, BTW.

--
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain.

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

> >>>> ROBERT <<<<<
> (for those reading impaired)

Yeah, right. What's your last name?

--
Talking about art is like dancing about architecture - Frank Zappa

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

> WTF do you care?

I don't. I wasn't the one who made the comment about anonymity making
people brave.

--
Talking about art is like dancing about architecture - Frank Zappa

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:21:07 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'd say 99.99% of the accidents were from carelessness. Personally I know
>of no one that is 100% careful and not careless at some time until they die.
>It only has to happen once at the right time.
>Again, I ask, have you ever cut yourself with a knife?

Sure, but I don't go out and buy safety knives that go dull when
touched with human skin. You live and learn lessons.

>Like putting a LOADED gun up to your head and pulling the trigger because
>you know the safety is on. Like crashing your vehicle into a concrete wall
>because you know that it has air bags. I really do not think that some one
>would be careless around a blade spinning at 3500 rpm. The visual would be
>enough to scare you.

A tablesaw is a dangerous piece of equipment. Always has been, always
will be. That's not to say that a Sawstop might not be a helpful
addition, if you choose to use it, but it's also an expensive addition
that really isn't worth the cost IMO. As you say, most accidents are
from carelessness, people need to take some personal responsibility
for their own safety and security.

And cars are so safe now that people aren't paying attention to how
they drive and that causes accidents.

>Not hard to do at all. But every one on this group, actually everyone is
>capable of making a mistake at any time.

So? I certainly don't see the nanny-state needing to mandate that *I*
have to pay extra for my equipment because someone else is being
careless.

>Do you use a standard blade guard when cutting dado's?

Absolutely. Of course, I retrofit my saw with an overhead guard so I
can use it for virtually any cut and I have a removeable splitter for
exactly these instances. But then again, we both agree that the
failure to use proper and reasonable care is key in most accidents. I
use care. Do you?

"Dave Balderstone" <dave***@balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:260220062049210916%dave***@balderstone.ca...
> In article <QhtMf.51112$%[email protected]>, stoutman
>
> Fuck you, too.

Gee Dave I seldom resort to cursing because I generally know how to put into
work what I want to say. Goodbye.

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote:
>
> Okay, I watched the video and all I could say was "WOW!". This saw is
> probably fairly expensive. Besides, I have a nice one and am always
> very careful.
>
> http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-videos.htm
>
> But it only takes one mistake to lose a finger. Click on the link and
> watch the videos linked on the site. It's amazing. I have to ask - is
> this for real or is this some kind of high tech joke?
>
> Has anyone else seen this machine before?
>
> Jack

Technologically it is interesting, however it has failed miserably from
a business perspective since the public doesn't want it.

Further reason to not patronize the company is the fact that in their
desperation to recover the development costs for their failed product
they are attempting to get the government to require manufacturers to
license and incorporate their technology in new saws.

This of course is essentially trying to get the government to force
consumers to purchase the product. Not only should you not patronize a
company as unethical as the sawstop folks, you should actively oppose
their corrupt efforts.

Pete C.

Frank Ketchum wrote:
>
> "Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > This of course is essentially trying to get the government to force
> > consumers to purchase the product. Not only should you not patronize a
> > company as unethical as the sawstop folks, you should actively oppose
> > their corrupt efforts.
> >
>
> I am no fan of sawstop because I am unconvinced of its ability to provide
> adequate protection. I am also not a fan of them lobbying government for
> increased regulation. However, you should be careful of accusing an entity
> of being corrupt. What exactly have they done that is corrupt / illegal?
> Nothing to my knowledge.

Morally corrupt a.k.a. unetical.

Trying to use the government to force your failed product onto consumers
is about as morally corrupt and unethical as they get. They certainly
aren't the first to attempt this of course.

Pete C.

The Davenport's wrote:
>
> > Jack the saw is amazing, and the post here are also. I posted a question a
> > few month ago when I had a misfire the thread went on for days. But the
> > saw
> > is great will be ordering a second one soon.
> > Joe
> >
>
> So, Joe...what I'm really wondering is when it misfires, does it kill the
> saw blade? And if so, did the SawStop folk offer to replace it for you?
>
> Mike

The system does indeed destroy the blade when it fires (correctly or
incorrectly). The blade is embedded into I believe an aluminum brake
shoe of sorts, about the only way to stop it that fast.

I prefer the most reliable safety system i.e. intelligence. I do not
place any part of my body in the "line of fire" of the saw blade when I
use my saw. This includes not standing in the potential path of thrown
wood or blade teeth in addition to keeping fingers safely away from the
blade.

Pete C.

John Carlson <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:04:21 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Further reason to not patronize the company is the fact that in their
>>> desperation to recover the development costs for their failed product
>>> they are attempting to get the government to require manufacturers to
>>> license and incorporate their technology in new saws.
>>
>>Any law against that? I believe that is called ummmm Capitolism.
>
>I guess I've had it wrong all these years. I always thought capitalism had
>something to do with building a superior product so the public would freely
>choose to buy it, not with lobbying the government to force people to buy
>something that they didn't want.

Well, I guess I've been wrong all these years as well. I always
thought capitalism had something to do with the private ownership of
the means of production. Frequently associated with, but not
synonymous with, free markets.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Nah! You wouldn't be motivated by greed of any type. Of course you don't
> own
> a car or a house, or a boat, or a stereo or a television. After all, none
> of
> those things are necessary for you to live. All you need is a little bit
> of
> food once in awhile and you're set. <smack me silly> What could I be
> thinking?
>

He is grabbing for straws now.

Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Leon
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So the tech would not be as good if it was mandated?
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mandated" is not a word.
>>
>> Mandate is a noun. Nouns do not have tenses.
>>
>> What are you trying to say?
>
>
> I think he's trying to say that it's required. Abd perhaps that he's
> one of those individuals who doesn't like government telling him how to
> live his life - at least that aspect of his life that concerns primarily
> his own well-being.
>
>
> I don't know what dictionary you checked but you have to check beyond
> the main word entry...
>
> man·date (măn'dāt')
> n.
> An authoritative command or instruction.
> A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its
> representative.
>
> A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to
> administer a territory.
> A region under such administration.
> Law.
> An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.
> A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another
> without payment.
> tr.v., -dat·ed, -dat·ing, -dates.
> To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
> To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated desegregation
> of public schools.
>
> The above was off the internet. Just to be sure, I checked Webster's
> New World Dictionary and they also list it as a transitive verb.
>
> Then again, your main point is well taken. Akin to cutting off one's
> nose to spite their face. I'm not aware of any law being broken in
> attempting to create a market for one's product through legislation -
> especially in matters of safety.
>
> If anyone doubts this, simply look back at things like, oh, seatbelts,
> motorcycle helmets, etc. Which came first? The product or the mandated
> usage thereof?
>
>
I think that most of these guys who are objecting to this "technology"
are like me, tired of being protected from themselves. It seems that
safety requirements are based upon the assumption that everyone using a
vehicle, or any other machinery which may cause injury or death if
misused, is an imbecile incapable of using "common sense".

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:55:39 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Yeah, if they're so concerned about safety, how about they give up
>> their *patent* and just provide the technology, free of charge, to the
>> saw manufacturers?

>Right! And of course, you work for free because you don't have any bills to
>pay and you don't care for some of the finer things in life. My apologies,
>how could I even think that you might be even a little bit capitalistic.

I'm not trying to force everyone to use my services though. They are.
They're not fighting to have *SOME* safety equipment mandated on all
saws, they're fighting to have *THEIR* safety equipment mandated. And
of course, since they own the patent on their equipment, every time
any saw manufacturer sells a saw, they get a paycheck.

"Oleg Lego" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The Upscale entity posted thusly:
>
> >"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
> >> Must be very cold up there. eh? Can't think straight Canuck?

> Are you under the misapprehension that 'Canuck' is an insult. I know

No, I'm not under that apprehension. I took the "can't think straight"
comment in conjunction with a being a Canadian as the insult. The word
Canuck by itself gives me no insult at all.

> he meant it as such, but it's about as insulting to a Canadian as
> 'American' is to him.

How do you know that being called a Canuck is not as insulting? Have you
lived in Canada? Considering that the spamslam.com you're using is located
in Texas, I'd have to assume that you're not a Canadian. (I was going to say
you're an American, but you've just informed me that it might be taken as an
insult). Of course, now you're going to have to enlighten me as to why being
called in American might be insulting. The only way I can envision that is
if it's used in the context of an insulting sentence.

Upscale wrote:

> http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701/disruptor-gass.html
>
> On one hand, I agree with you that legislation forcing the Sawstop equipment
> on people is tantamount to an attempt at a cash grab from everybody. The
> other side of the equation is that all the other manufactures might deserve
> to be forced to capitulate to the technology. Read the article and decide
> for yourself.

Two sides to every story, and that one is very interesting. I still
don't like the idea of mandating SawStop's tech, but that may have been
done in desperation at the evident conspiracy to quash it.

"Defense Research Industry", indeed. Should be Industry Defense Research.

er
--
email not valid

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:02:39 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Did yo know how to properly handle a knife when you cut your self? Does a
>knife that goes dull exist?

I don't know, if there was any money in it, I'm sure someone would
come up with it. I don't think anyone is going to be paying $100 for
a steak knife that does it though. Profit drives innovation.

>Exactly. For many people, going the extra step of spending a a lottle more
>money on the SawStop will be taking an extra step towards their own safety
>and security.

Which is fine, that's up to them. But Sawstop wants to force EVERYONE
to use their technology whether they want it or not.

>Um the overhead guard, is not a standard guard. You paid extra for that.

Nope, I didn't pay any extra for it, I built it myself with stuff I
already had around the shop. ;)

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:43:36 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I bet a bunch of people said that then the common POS guard, that comes on
>almost every saw, was mandated also.

You mean the same people who are removing the guards and having
accidents? What makes you think for a second that even if the Sawstop
became standard equipment, people wouldn't disable it?

>Perhaps you do not see the need for more safety equipment but enough people
>did to warrant SawStop making the commitment to see this through.

The only thing Sawstop cares about is making money. If they force the
industry to use their technology, they make a bundle. Come on, let's
be honest, they're in it for the paycheck.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:49:09 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What are we doing wrong?

Switch it to "sausage cutting mode". There is a switch, presumably for
just this purpose.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> only 10% are against the SawStop because if SawStop continues to thrive
the
> other manufacturers will most certainly have to get on the band wagon to
> satisfy the remaining 90% of us. Most likely with more manufacturers
> offering this type safety feature the price of this technology will come
> down.

I don't believe that. There's always that segment of the population who are
going to be driven solely by cost. Just like chiwanese products that are
flooding North America, there would always be a market for a non sawstop
table saw. However, it would be nice if the price of the technology would
come down. I'm counting on that process to happen a little bit more before I
buy my first flat panel computer monitor and first 60" flat screen TV.

Pete C. wrote:
> "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote:
>
>>Okay, I watched the video and all I could say was "WOW!". This saw is
>>probably fairly expensive. Besides, I have a nice one and am always
>>very careful.
>>
>>http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-videos.htm
>>
>>But it only takes one mistake to lose a finger. Click on the link and
>>watch the videos linked on the site. It's amazing. I have to ask - is
>>this for real or is this some kind of high tech joke?
>>
>>Has anyone else seen this machine before?
>>
>>Jack
>
>
> Technologically it is interesting, however it has failed miserably from
> a business perspective since the public doesn't want it.

I don't know about that. However, people have too much babying today.
If you stick your finger on the blade, you deserved to loose it. Take
your medecine like a man.

>
> Further reason to not patronize the company is the fact that in their
> desperation to recover the development costs for their failed product
> they are attempting to get the government to require manufacturers to
> license and incorporate their technology in new saws.
>

Sounds a lot like the insurance industry to me. They will have to
grease a lot of pockets to make that happen. Especially not that their
cards are on the table.

> This of course is essentially trying to get the government to force
> consumers to purchase the product. Not only should you not patronize a
> company as unethical as the sawstop folks, you should actively oppose
> their corrupt efforts.
>
> Pete C.



Yea. And what a bonehead move. Patents only last so long...Anyway I
saw this years back and thought it was pretty cool. The guy deserves
some money for his invention, but none for any 'extortion' he may try in
the future :P

--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16

"Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Technologically it is interesting, however it has failed miserably from
> a business perspective since the public doesn't want it.

Do you have finantial figures to back up you claim here? LOL
Since the saw is in production and selling within a few years of having been
introduced I would say it is a success despite personal feelings about the
saw.

> Further reason to not patronize the company is the fact that in their
> desperation to recover the development costs for their failed product
> they are attempting to get the government to require manufacturers to
> license and incorporate their technology in new saws.

Any law against that? I believe that is called ummmm Capitolism.

> This of course is essentially trying to get the government to force
> consumers to purchase the product. Not only should you not patronize a
> company as unethical as the sawstop folks, you should actively oppose
> their corrupt efforts.

Oh you have a hard on... I see.

> Now, now, lets not bring country insults into it. Especially, considering
> that you guys down south of us have that dead soldier nut living in your
> country.
Your right! Sorry. It was thrown in the heat of the moment. My apologies
to all my Canadian buddies! :)

> Any insults you may throw at us Canadians are dwarfed by some of
> the miscreants you allow to live in the US.

Now thats below the belt. :)

>

On 2/26/2006 10:59 PM Unquestionably Confused mumbled something about=20
the following:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Leon
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So the tech would not be as good if it was mandated?
>>
>>
>> "Mandated" is not a word.
>>
>> Mandate is a noun. Nouns do not have tenses.
>>
>> What are you trying to say?
>=20
> I think he's trying to say that it's required. Abd perhaps that he's=20
> one of those individuals who doesn't like government telling him how to=
=20
> live his life - at least that aspect of his life that concerns primaril=
y=20
> his own well-being.
>=20
>=20
> I don't know what dictionary you checked but you have to check beyond=20
> the main word entry...
>=20
> man=C2=B7date (m=C4=83n'd=C4=81t')
> n.
> An authoritative command or instruction.
> A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its=20
> representative.
>=20
> A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to =

> administer a territory.
> A region under such administration.
> Law.
> An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.
> A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another=20
> without payment.
> tr.v., -dat=C2=B7ed, -dat=C2=B7ing, -dates.
> To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate=
=2E
> To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated desegregation=
=20
> of public schools.
>=20
> The above was off the internet. Just to be sure, I checked Webster's=20
> New World Dictionary and they also list it as a transitive verb.
>=20
> Then again, your main point is well taken. Akin to cutting off one's=20
> nose to spite their face. I'm not aware of any law being broken in=20
> attempting to create a market for one's product through legislation -=20
> especially in matters of safety.
>=20
> If anyone doubts this, simply look back at things like, oh, seatbelts, =

> motorcycle helmets, etc. Which came first? The product or the mandate=
d=20
> usage thereof?

You might want to try again here. Sawstop wanted to mandate that THEIR=20
technology would be in all saws. There is no single company that makes=20
seatbelts or motorcycles helmets, etc, that mandates their product be=20
used. Seatbelts and helmets were around a long time before they were=20
forced on consumers, and helmets still aren't universally forced on=20
motorcycle riders.

--=20
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

"Leon" wrote in message

> Are Texans considered Americans by the rest of the country or are they
just
> Texans? :~)

Actually, it was in Louisiana ... back in the swamps, if you didn't look
like you belonged, or speak French, you were "American", not Acadian. Many
times, when I was out fishing or hunting and came up on one of those tar
paper shacks, I heard the occupants say, in French, "Here comes an
American".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > only 10% are against the SawStop because if SawStop continues to thrive
> the
> > other manufacturers will most certainly have to get on the band wagon to
> > satisfy the remaining 90% of us. Most likely with more manufacturers
> > offering this type safety feature the price of this technology will
come
> > down.
>
> I don't believe that. There's always that segment of the population who
are
> going to be driven solely by cost. Just like chiwanese products that are
> flooding North America, there would always be a market for a non sawstop
> table saw. However, it would be nice if the price of the technology would
> come down. I'm counting on that process to happen a little bit more before
I
> buy my first flat panel computer monitor and first 60" flat screen TV.
>

Hi -

Be glad to show you one at the downtown Toronto store ....just have to ask!
(once we're open that is....April 3rd),

We're replacing every table saw we have with Sawstops. (and selling off the
saws we have!)

The bottom line for us is that it's a high-end, well-made tool.... with
excellent safety features. Yes - it's a tad costly... but we have literally
hundreds (if not thousands) people using our shop saws each year .... and
it's not a question of "if" an accident happens - it's "when"....and that's
what makes the decision for us.

Probabilties (and economics) take on a different slant with size.....

Cheers -

Rob

"alexy" wrote in message
> Mike Berger wrote:
>
> >You do indeed have it wrong. Capitalism is about making money.
>
> No, you have it wrong, too. State-owned firms in a socialist system
> also try to make money. One might argue that private ownership of
> capital (capitalism) increases the focus of managers on profit
> relative to those working for state-owned firms, but it is a lot more
> complicated than saying that "capitalism is about making money".
> Capitalism is about who owns the capital.


True capitalism is based on enlightened self interest, with a healthy dose
of moral rectitude required.

It would do well for all of you (and our present Lawyer/MBA culture) to go
read Adam Smith, again, or for the first time.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> greatly suspect because it was louder. I have had people bump into me
while
> setting at a stop light. Living in Houston I finally gave up riding.
> Highway riding was the only safe riding.

That would/does drive me nuts. I've never driven a motorbike, but I've had
people repeatedly bump into me in my wheelchair. I'd guess riders on a bike
would feel much the same as I feel in a wheelchair, it's an extension of me.
Someone carelessly touching it is equivalent to someone touching me without
my permission. I've had people bump me twice, but never a third time because
I usually turn around with a snarl to chew the perpetrator out.

"Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Personally, I think seatbelts should be removed, and the driver's seat
> be placed in front of the front bumper of the car and a spike placed in
> the center of the steering wheel. Might get drivers to actually pay
> attention to what they are doing instead of pretending they are driving
> in the Daytona 500.

Brings to mind a television show that's been playing on the discovery
channel, called Canada's Worst Driver. Some of these people are *so* bad at
driving that I think the testing agent at the driving centre who passed
them, should be strung up by their short hairs.
http://www.discoverychannel.ca/worstdriver/

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> It seems right now that they are charging around $4000 for the saw when
> you
>> can buy a unisaur for around $1800 so the saw stop option basically is
> over
>> $2000 right now. It seems like this is sawstop's main problem.
>
> Well, taking into account from Sawstop's desire to make a profit, I'd be
> interested to know what expense their added technology costs when applied
> to
> a tablesaw. It's almost a given that they are following the same rule that
> the drug companies use. Charge to recoup their reseach costs and charge
> because no one else has it.

Sounds like the same scenario that Freon has gone through in the last 20
years. IIRC DuPont holds the patent on all the current versions of Freon.
Back in the early 90's and probably now, you could get the Freon much
cheaper outside the US from the places that do not play fair to DuPont's
patents.

<[email protected]> wrote in message

> I think the saw is properly positioned in the market place. If you
> don't need it or want it, you don't have to buy it. What a concept.
> And those that do, can. And since some like the concept, that doesn't
> make them some kind of candy assed weenie. I would probably have them
> if I did more cabinets since I would feel better about they guys
> working with a table saw with a blade brake.

The reality is that now that the technology is commercially available it
will be difficult to legally defend an employer who doesn't take advantage
of it to protect employees from the certainty that accidents happen. And
insurance risk managers will be mandating it, if they are not already doing
so.

So, in effect, even if some don't want it, they may not have really a choice
... a slick position for the patent holder.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"Jane & David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I'm afraid you can forget about getting rid of the garbage. I've been
> mostly lurking here for several years, and in spite of the garbage,
> there are some really helpful and knowledgeable people here. This is a
> pretty good place, you just have to learn to watch where you step.

Sounds like any standard barnyard. Who says life has changed?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So, in effect, even if some don't want it, they may not have really a
> choice
> ... a slick position for the patent holder. <<

Sorta, Used, with out the feature will be around for a while.

Snip
>
> Many years ago I was totally annoyed by the fact that some circular saw
> makers decided to put blade brakes on their saws. I was pissed off a
> the fact that the saw would jerk so hard at the end of the cut it would
> yank itself around on the work. I understood the intent a lot better
> after having the blade guard hang open while cutting some splintery
> stuff. I set the saw down and it skittered across the concrete and
> rolled over my foot. Going to fast, it didn't do anything but scare
> the living crap out of me. In my mind at that point it was clear why
> someone would want a blade brake. They still aren't prevalent, but
> most manufacturers at least off a circular saw with the blade brake.

You never think it could happen to you,,,, until it does. Where have whe
heard that before. ;~)


> Look at miter saws - I think they all have blade brakes now. No
> telling how many digits have been saved by that introduction. And
> cordless drills - does anyone make one anymore that doesn't? I wonder
> how many injuries have been averted by those?

I'd like to see a muffer added to these saws. Damn they are loud.


> The good news is that we still have a choice. Anyone can do anything
> that they want with their saw right now, and I am sure that when they
> are widely introduced that it will be mandatory for the civil rights
> militia to immediately figure out and post instructions on how to
> defeat the system. Much like some used to roll up their seatbelts and
> stick them in the separation of the bench to back inside the car.

Remember back in the mid 70's when the new cars would not start untill the
belt was buckled?

> Then their lives can go on unfettered by another safety device that was
> obviously designed for someone else.

Obviously. ;~)

"Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>
> As a motorcycle rider who rides 40 miles each way, to/from work, there
> isn't a day that goes by that some idiot in a cage doesn't try to take me
> out, either by changing lanes into me, pulling out of a side road as I'm
> approaching, turning across the road in front of me, etc. 90% of the
> drivers on the road are busy doing something else, reading, dialing their
> cellphone, putting on makeup, plucking their eyebrows, shaving, etc, while
> driving 2 ft off the bumper of the car in front of them. A good majority
> of the accidents around here are someone rear-ending another car, and I
> usually hear of about 5 or 6 every morning on the radio. The biggest
> offenders, SUV drivers. They think they're invulnerable and are the most
> likely to rearend someone (at least by my observations).
>


I had 2 Japanese bikes and a Harley. I had less problems with the Harley I
greatly suspect because it was louder. I have had people bump into me while
setting at a stop light. Living in Houston I finally gave up riding.
Highway riding was the only safe riding.

"John Carlson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:04:21 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Further reason to not patronize the company is the fact that in their
>>> desperation to recover the development costs for their failed product
>>> they are attempting to get the government to require manufacturers to
>>> license and incorporate their technology in new saws.
>>
>>Any law against that? I believe that is called ummmm Capitolism.
>
> I guess I've had it wrong all these years. I always thought capitalism
> had
> something to do with building a superior product so the public would
> freely
> choose to buy it, not with lobbying the government to force people to buy
> something that they didn't want.


Well yes you have . LOL I'm guessing for at least the last 40+ years
government involvement has helped Capitalism thrive. Superior product???
Please.... The American car manufacturing industry persuaded government
into charging high import taxes so that their competition would have to sell
at higher prices. The Capitalism that you are thinking about has not quite
been like you recall for many many years. In one way, shape , or form many
large companies have received help from the government to make us pay more
and pay for things that we do not necessarily want. How about mandatory
auto insurance in many states if not all. Why do you think government
positions are so darn appealing to all the corrupt individuals that run for
office? Why does a man spend millions upon millions of dollars on his
campaign when the salary return is a fraction of what he paid to get into
office, and yet he ends up with more money than he started with? How about
Digital TV? Every one that wants to watch free TV will one day soon have to
have a Digital Tuner or a TV with a Digital Tuner as analog is fazed out in
the next few years. How about that stock market. What quality product is
being sold there? SawStop is just one more company legally enjoying
Capitalism in the U.S.
I agree that it would be nice if Capitalism existed with out government
involvement as you stated but it simply does not exist that way in these
times.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> For my birthday, I would like nice steak and a good cabernet. Some
> roses would be nice too, you rascal. Gift certificates are always
> nice... I'm pretty easy to get along with.

Easy to get along with? Right! And, so am I if someone wants to bribe me.
<g>

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Down at the sausage factory we no longer make links, but extrude one huge
> sausage and cut it to length on the table saw. Production was up and we
> made a lot of money so we bought some new saws from a company called Saw
> Stop. Looked like a good product, but we've been having a lot of failures
> every time we cut a sausage. What are we doing wrong?
>

Ok, you just made that up.....!!! ;~). the Saw Stop only works on
wieners.

You know, this is why people don't like newsgroups. ALL I was saying is
that I found this saw to be amazing. Okay, SHOOT ME! I'm sorry!!!!

Damn, what is it with people? I didn't know this was "common" knowledge
and I thought I'd share it.

I apologize for trying to be nice.

Jack


Jim wrote:

> "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" <"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> wrote
> in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Well, for the past 18 months, I've been in NM. Before that, I was in NJ.
>>And before that, we lived in Ohio for a couple year. And up until I was
>>about 10, I was in upstate NY.
>>
>>Why do you ask?
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>stoutman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Where have you been?
>>>
>>
> Well, you certainly have not been following this list much. Nor have you
> watched the TV woodworking shows. The Sawstop folks have been demonstrating
> their device for quite some time without much success.
> Jim
>
>

"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 00:18:05 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I would rather the saw falsely trip 30 times and correctly on the 31st
>>>time than not trip at all.
>
>>Ahh, but that could never happen. If your saw tripped falsely 30 times,
>>you'd have hung yourself long before then.
>
> You'd probably have sold the saw by then since you couldn't afford to
> keep replacing the blade and stop. You know that, even assuming the
> blade and stop only cost $250 total to replace, you could buy almost
> *4* whole new tablesaws?
>
> You could make your shop look like Norm's for that! ;)

Well lets see here. WWII on sale $100. New Cartridge IIRC $80. $180 x 30
= $5400. You cannot buy 2 new SawStop cabinet saws for that. Screw the new
saw. You cannot replace a finger for that.
I guess it has a lot to do with what your priorities are.

"Robin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>
> Hi -
>
> Be glad to show you one at the downtown Toronto store ....just have to
> ask!
> (once we're open that is....April 3rd),
>
> We're replacing every table saw we have with Sawstops. (and selling off
> the
> saws we have!)

Is this the real Robin Lee Speaking??? ;~)


> The bottom line for us is that it's a high-end, well-made tool.... with
> excellent safety features. Yes - it's a tad costly... but we have
> literally
> hundreds (if not thousands) people using our shop saws each year .... and
> it's not a question of "if" an accident happens - it's "when"....and
> that's
> what makes the decision for us.

I would say a very smart decision.

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" <"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> You know, this is why people don't like newsgroups. ALL I was saying is
> that I found this saw to be amazing. Okay, SHOOT ME! I'm sorry!!!!
>
> Damn, what is it with people? I didn't know this was "common" knowledge
> and I thought I'd share it.
>
> I apologize for trying to be nice.
>
> Jack

Jack the saw is amazing, and the post here are also. I posted a question a
few month ago when I had a misfire the thread went on for days. But the saw
is great will be ordering a second one soon.
Joe

"Upscale" wrote in message

> insult). Of course, now you're going to have to enlighten me as to why
being
> called in American might be insulting.

Believe it or not, in at least one part of America when I was a kid, it was,
in the sense that you were an outsider ... and may still be.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Nope, I didn't pay any extra for it, I built it myself with stuff I
> already had around the shop. ;)

So uh your shop is like mine. Stuff magically appears. :~) and in my case
disappears?

"Joe Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I don't recall anything about Sawstop still working for any length of
> time after the power goes out to prevent this. The owners manual
> http://www.sawstop.com/Cabinet_Saw_Manual.pdf page 11 of 100 says "To
> prevent loss of Sawstop protection during coast down, do not turn off
> main power until blade has stopped spinning."
> UPS for a table saw?

I was referring to a residential power failure, not someone turning off the
main power. It only takes a fraction of a second to cut off a finger. As far
as I know, other than it's safety feature, the sawstop doesn't have a brake,
so it will take a few seconds to spin down.

"alexy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >A power failure plunges you into darkness and you
> >slip against the still spinning blade in the dark.

> Your fault. You mean you didn't install a backup power supply on your
> lighting?

Aren't you reaching a bit? I know the technology exists for backup power
supplies, but honestly, how many people do you know who have set it up. A
computer, electronic equipment, ok, but general house or workshop lighting?

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" <"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> You know, this is why people don't like newsgroups. ALL I was saying is
> that I found this saw to be amazing. Okay, SHOOT ME! I'm sorry!!!!
>
> Damn, what is it with people? I didn't know this was "common" knowledge
> and I thought I'd share it.
>
> I apologize for trying to be nice.
>
> Jack

Do not apologize Jack, you did nothing wrong. This is a holy war for some
and some people simply cannot handle the fact that the SawStop exists.

"GeeDubb" <[email protected]> wrote in message>
> When was the last time somebody lost their finger in a saw accident due to
> somebody running into them? I'm sure it's happened (and I'd be really
> pissed if somebody did that to me...)

Strange how much you missed the point of my message. The point is that
accidents can happen no matter how safely you conduct yourself, in any
venue. I'm not going to google the subject, but I wonder how many thousands
of people in the US alone have missing fingers solely due to tablesaws.

Umm This has been discussed time and time again in the last 3 or so years.

The general consensus is that most every one here would rather not buy the
saw for personal reasons. About 10% here think it is a great idea also. It
sells for about the same price of a Powermatic cabinet saw, so pricing is
competitive considering all the features. Actual owners seem to be quite
pleased with the saw although on occasion there have some misfires that were
later corrected.


"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" <"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> Okay, I watched the video and all I could say was "WOW!". This saw is
> probably fairly expensive. Besides, I have a nice one and am always very
> careful.
>
> http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-videos.htm
>
> But it only takes one mistake to lose a finger. Click on the link and
> watch the videos linked on the site. It's amazing. I have to ask - is
> this for real or is this some kind of high tech joke?
>
> Has anyone else seen this machine before?
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" <"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> Okay, I watched the video and all I could say was "WOW!". This saw is
> probably fairly expensive. Besides, I have a nice one and am always very
> careful.
>
> http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-videos.htm
>
> But it only takes one mistake to lose a finger. Click on the link and
> watch the videos linked on the site. It's amazing. I have to ask - is
> this for real or is this some kind of high tech joke?
>
> Has anyone else seen this machine before?
>
> Jack
>
That saw would be great for interrogations....

"Chuck Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Out of curiosity, Leon, a few weeks ago you were speaking highly of
> Powermatic's new table saw, which lacks this safety feature. Have you
> changed your mind?


No not at all. There are several great products out there on the market.
Each has it strong points and each deserves a fair shake in the area that it
may excel. Unlike the SawStop the Powermatic 2000 does not have the blade
stop technology however it unlike many originally American branded saws does
have a riving knife like the SawStop. Sooo this may be a first step of the
competition taking a second look at SawStops lead with a saw with more
safety features.
With that said, I am absolutely not saying that the SawStop is the do all
beat all final word in table saws. I do however think that if the SawStop
is not your cup of tea to not bash the product and technology because of
what you may or may not think of the company that is marketing it.

Robatoy wrote:
>
> Simple... it's supposed to be:
> "Cut the cheese"
> "Hide the sausage"

Bop the baloney...

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701/disruptor-gass.html
>
> On one hand, I agree with you that legislation forcing the Sawstop
> equipment
> on people is tantamount to an attempt at a cash grab from everybody. The
> other side of the equation is that all the other manufactures might
> deserve
> to be forced to capitulate to the technology. Read the article and decide
> for yourself.
>

Kinda makes you think. While some would say that SawStop is only interested
in making a buck and not interested in our safety, at least they are not the
ones making the buck trying to insure that our safety is not on the agenda.
>

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


<snip>

>
> Is this the real Robin Lee Speaking??? ;~)
>
<snip>

Hi Leon -

Just checked in the mirror.... and it is.

Cheers -

Rob

"Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>
> Personally, I think seatbelts should be removed, and the driver's seat be
> placed in front of the front bumper of the car and a spike placed in the
> center of the steering wheel. Might get drivers to actually pay attention
> to what they are doing instead of pretending they are driving in the
> Daytona 500.


There is a thought and while some what absurd, absolutely not as absurd as
the people you are talking about.

"Dave Balderstone" <dave***@balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:260220061947101447%dave***@balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Leon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So the tech would not be as good if it was mandated?
>
> "Mandated" is not a word.
>
> Mandate is a noun. Nouns do not have tenses.
>

Wrong! It can also be a transitive verb. The below was taken from
dictionary.com. Number 2 applys here.

tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1.. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a
mandate.
2.. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated
desegregation of public schools.
Stick to making jigs.


> What are you trying to say?
>
> --
> Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
> - Mark Twain.

"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:RQtMf.51225$%[email protected]...
>
> Must be very cold up there. eh? Can't think straight Canuck?


Now you have gone and done it. Dave has Plonked you. I wish he would plonk
me.

>
> And for you, I make an exception to my "don't announce the plonks" rule
> and announce... Plonk.
>

Yeah!!!! No more Balderstone pissing in my threads!!!

> Fuck you, too.

Must be very cold up there. eh? Can't think straight Canuck?


--
Stoutman
http://www.garagewoodworks.com
(Featuring a NEW look)

On 3/2/2006 6:37 PM Upscale mumbled something about the following:
> "Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> It isn't all that hard to keep your finger away from the spinning
>> knives of death if you think about what you're doing and you use the
>> standard safety equipment. How much do you want to bet that most of
>> the woodworkers who have lost fingers were working without a blade
>> guard?
>
> Honestly, I think you're being a little short-sighted. I certainly don't
> agree with Sawstop trying to get its technology mandated, but I can easily
> see it's value. There's always going to be the unknown that suddenly appears
> to bite you in the ass. The Sawstop to me is the same as a seatbelt in a
> car. It's there *if* something unforeseen happens. Nobody, or at least very
> few people I know go out driving to be unsafe, yet accidents happen.
>
> As to my opinion on seatbelts for cars, I have a picture that is categorical
> evidence that seat belts saves lives ~ my life in this instance.
>
>

Personally, I think seatbelts should be removed, and the driver's seat
be placed in front of the front bumper of the car and a spike placed in
the center of the steering wheel. Might get drivers to actually pay
attention to what they are doing instead of pretending they are driving
in the Daytona 500.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

Ah, well, it was the first time I had seen or heard of it. Expensive
and probably does have other problems (I'll read the previous writeups
if I can find them). But still ... it's just sooooo cool.

Jack

CW wrote:

> If you google this group for sawstop, you will find hours of reading ahead
> of you.
>
> "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" <"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> wrote
> in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Okay, I watched the video and all I could say was "WOW!". This saw is
>>probably fairly expensive. Besides, I have a nice one and am always
>>very careful.
>>
>>http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-videos.htm
>>
>>But it only takes one mistake to lose a finger. Click on the link and
>>watch the videos linked on the site. It's amazing. I have to ask - is
>>this for real or is this some kind of high tech joke?
>>
>>Has anyone else seen this machine before?
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Well, for the past 18 months, I've been in NM. Before that, I was in
NJ. And before that, we lived in Ohio for a couple year. And up until I
was about 10, I was in upstate NY.

Why do you ask?

Jack

stoutman wrote:

>
>
> Where have you been?
>

"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:09:25 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> Because we're not talking about people who go out and purposely buy
> SawStops, we're talking about people who are forced to pay extra for a
> piece of technology that they neither want, nor need. The fact that
> every time the thing goes off, you're out $200. You don't think
> people are going to disable that?

Well so far no one has been forced to do anything. So if they buy the
SawStop it is their own decision.
No, I do not think a person will disable the SawStop and IIRC there has been
no mention by the owners of the SawStop of purposely defeating the system as
a permanent cure.

>
>>Please. That is the primary reason that they and or any other business in
>>business, to make mone first and formost.
>
> Yup, and they want an entire industry to use *THEIR* technology. It
> isn't a matter of them campaigning for *SOME* safety equipment, they
> want everyone to be forced to use *THEIR* equipment.

Well, wouldn't you, if you were in their shoes? Seriousely wouldn't it be
nice if you were legally getting a percentage of every TS being sold?

> This has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with making a buck.

That is not entirely true. They could just as easily be marketing something
else unique for the TS and try to have it mandated also. They did however
realize that a better safety devise would cut down drastically on severe
injuries. Suppose they decided that every TS should have a laser cutter
that only cut wood and only cut as deep a the thickness of the wood. The
technology is here as most WW shows have a vendor selling laser engravers
and some are less than $10k. That could easily be around the corner and
would give SawStop and every one else a run for the money.
You can sit back and watch other countries continue to out manufacture the
US but I think the SawStop company is a breath of fresh air in contrast to
the some ole some ole.
And again, it is for the buck like every other company in the U.S.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:RQtMf.51225$%[email protected]...
>>
>> Must be very cold up there. eh? Can't think straight Canuck?
>
>
> Now you have gone and done it. Dave has Plonked you. >

Not a big loss.
>I wish he would plonk me.

That's easy.
Just ask him how to make a jig to convert a jointer into a bandsaw or a
table saw into a drill press or (insert ridiculous jig here)

--
Stoutman
http://www.garagewoodworks.com
(Featuring a NEW look)

"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And most of them, if you talk to them, were careless when they had
> their accident.

I'd say 99.99% of the accidents were from carelessness. Personally I know
of no one that is 100% careful and not careless at some time until they die.
It only has to happen once at the right time.
Again, I ask, have you ever cut yourself with a knife?

It's up to people to be careful and know when a
> particular cut is safe and when it is not. If the cut is not safe,
> one should not make it regardless of the safety equipment you have on
> your saw.

That has a little to do with it but I cut half my thumb off after the cut,
after walking away from the saw to lay the board down, and after turning the
saw off. You really don't know of all the possibilities nor can you be
prepared for them 100% of the time. In my case, the SawStop would have
prevented my injury.

>
>>It certainly is not necessary but if you can afford it, it's well worth
>>consideration.
>
> I never said it couldn't be useful, I just said it was more costly
> than it was worth IMO.

Well hopefully you will never need to test your opinion.

On the other side, having something like that
> could give someone a false sense of security and lead to taking more
> risks than they would otherwise.

Like putting a LOADED gun up to your head and pulling the trigger because
you know the safety is on. Like crashing your vehicle into a concrete wall
because you know that it has air bags. I really do not think that some one
would be careless around a blade spinning at 3500 rpm. The visual would be
enough to scare you.


>>Well in your own words, A woodworker exercising reasonable caution has
>>nothing to fear from the tablesaw. With proper caution a kick back is not
>>going to harm you either.
>
> That's why most saws come with a splitter as standard equipment, it
> prevents kickback. Without a splitter, it is difficult, if not
> impossible on some cuts, to keep the kerf from closing on the far side
> of the blade.


No, a splitter can help prevent a kick back but is absolutely no guarantee.
If the splitter prevents a kick back and you realize it, its a good chance
that you made a mistake.
Still the riving knife is far superior to the splitter. It does not have to
be removed for many cuts that would require the removal of the splitter.
While the riving knife is no guarantee against kick back either, it can be
used in more instances than a standard splitter and it typically works
better because of its proximity to the blade.


> It isn't all that hard to keep your finger away from the spinning
> knives of death if you think about what you're doing and you use the
> standard safety equipment.

Not hard to do at all. But every one on this group, actually everyone is
capable of making a mistake at any time.

How much do you want to bet that most of
> the woodworkers who have lost fingers were working without a blade
> guard?

Do you use a standard blade guard when cutting dado's?

Good luck Brian and don't take this the wrong way but you seem to be a
little naive as to how many different ways an accident can happen given the
numerous operations that can be performed on a TS. While it is totally your
decision and opinion that you are personally careful enough to deem the Saw
Stop not worth the money you have pointed out to me more than a couple of
instances where you are absolutely wrong. Again, be careful.

"ATP*" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> That saw would be great for interrogations....

And we have already seen sawstop's demo of a wiener slowly moving into the
blade. Sort of inspires all kinds of horrifying techniques.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> shop someone trips and falls on the machine. I will then post this
>> thread so you can remember that you don't need additional protection,
>> and if you or yours did something to yourself by accident, you may have
>> deserved it.
>
> I was thinking of an accident happening through no fault of your own. The
> dog comes in and brushes against your leg distracting you. Something falls
> off a shelf startling you. A power failure plunges you into darkness and
> you
> slip against the still spinning blade in the dark.

Ahh. The words that come from an open mind. Not getting hurt using a TS and
proper technique is the easy part. It's the untontrollable variables that
come into play that cause accidents.


> The more I read about this, the more I'm thinking a Sawstop is a pretty
> good
> idea, especially considering that I work from an awkward height ~ sitting
> in
> a wheelchair. But, for me anyway, it's way out of my financial reach.
> Besides, if I cut off a finger, it won't cost me anything up front, except
> a
> lot of pain and cursing. One advantage anyway, of our Canadian medical
> system.

Perhaps as production ramps up and or the consumer demands better safety
devices from the companies that are waiting to see what happens with the
SawStop the competitive pricing will make it more affordable to every one.
I cut 1/2 my thumb off in 1989. My insurance covered a majority of the
expense but I have had to adapt as you have. My accident happened after I
completed the cut and turned the saw off, and began removing the rip fence.
Every one that knew me could not believe that I had an accident. It all
happened so fast and at a time that you would not dream that something like
this could happen. For months I thought that I'd had a kick back but until
I almost had the accident again about 1 year later I never knew what had
happened exactly. I had been into serious woodworking about 10 years.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I would rather the saw falsely trip 30 times and correctly on the 31st
time
> than not trip at all.

Ahh, but that could never happen. If your saw tripped falsely 30 times,
you'd have hung yourself long before then.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> shop someone trips and falls on the machine. I will then post this
> thread so you can remember that you don't need additional protection,
> and if you or yours did something to yourself by accident, you may have
> deserved it.

I was thinking of an accident happening through no fault of your own. The
dog comes in and brushes against your leg distracting you. Something falls
off a shelf startling you. A power failure plunges you into darkness and you
slip against the still spinning blade in the dark.

The more I read about this, the more I'm thinking a Sawstop is a pretty good
idea, especially considering that I work from an awkward height ~ sitting in
a wheelchair. But, for me anyway, it's way out of my financial reach.
Besides, if I cut off a finger, it won't cost me anything up front, except a
lot of pain and cursing. One advantage anyway, of our Canadian medical
system.

"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Yeah, if they're so concerned about safety, how about they give up
> their *patent* and just provide the technology, free of charge, to the
> saw manufacturers?

Right! And of course, you work for free because you don't have any bills to
pay and you don't care for some of the finer things in life. My apologies,
how could I even think that you might be even a little bit capitalistic.

> Let's see how much they're motivated by greed.

Nah! You wouldn't be motivated by greed of any type. Of course you don't own
a car or a house, or a boat, or a stereo or a television. After all, none of
those things are necessary for you to live. All you need is a little bit of
food once in awhile and you're set. <smack me silly> What could I be
thinking?

On 3/3/2006 4:07 AM Upscale mumbled something about the following:
> "Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Personally, I think seatbelts should be removed, and the driver's seat
>> be placed in front of the front bumper of the car and a spike placed in
>> the center of the steering wheel. Might get drivers to actually pay
>> attention to what they are doing instead of pretending they are driving
>> in the Daytona 500.
>
> Brings to mind a television show that's been playing on the discovery
> channel, called Canada's Worst Driver. Some of these people are *so* bad at
> driving that I think the testing agent at the driving centre who passed
> them, should be strung up by their short hairs.
> http://www.discoverychannel.ca/worstdriver/
>
>

You should come to Hotlanta, Jawja and have a go round with the idiots
we have here. I'm pretty sure that 99% of them got their drivers
license out of a Cracker Jacks box.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

On 3/2/2006 10:38 PM Leon mumbled something about the following:
> "Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Personally, I think seatbelts should be removed, and the driver's seat be
>> placed in front of the front bumper of the car and a spike placed in the
>> center of the steering wheel. Might get drivers to actually pay attention
>> to what they are doing instead of pretending they are driving in the
>> Daytona 500.
>
>
> There is a thought and while some what absurd, absolutely not as absurd as
> the people you are talking about.
>
>

As a motorcycle rider who rides 40 miles each way, to/from work, there
isn't a day that goes by that some idiot in a cage doesn't try to take
me out, either by changing lanes into me, pulling out of a side road as
I'm approaching, turning across the road in front of me, etc. 90% of
the drivers on the road are busy doing something else, reading, dialing
their cellphone, putting on makeup, plucking their eyebrows, shaving,
etc, while driving 2 ft off the bumper of the car in front of them. A
good majority of the accidents around here are someone rear-ending
another car, and I usually hear of about 5 or 6 every morning on the
radio. The biggest offenders, SUV drivers. They think they're
invulnerable and are the most likely to rearend someone (at least by my
observations).

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

Down at the sausage factory we no longer make links, but extrude one huge
sausage and cut it to length on the table saw. Production was up and we
made a lot of money so we bought some new saws from a company called Saw
Stop. Looked like a good product, but we've been having a lot of failures
every time we cut a sausage. What are we doing wrong?

"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:43:36 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I bet a bunch of people said that then the common POS guard, that comes
>>on
>>almost every saw, was mandated also.
>
> You mean the same people who are removing the guards and having
> accidents? What makes you think for a second that even if the Sawstop
> became standard equipment, people wouldn't disable it?

No I mean every one that removes the guard and having accidents or not.
Why would prople that bought a saw in particular for its safety feature
disable it? It certainly does not get in the way or block you view when
being used like the standard guard does? Why did you remove yours and
replace it with an overhead guard?

>
>>Perhaps you do not see the need for more safety equipment but enough
>>people
>>did to warrant SawStop making the commitment to see this through.
>
> The only thing Sawstop cares about is making money.

Please. That is the primary reason that they and or any other business in
business, to make mone first and formost.

If they force the
> industry to use their technology, they make a bundle. Come on, let's
> be honest, they're in it for the paycheck.

Yeah, and you work for free, right?

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Upscale" wrote in message
>
>> insult). Of course, now you're going to have to enlighten me as to why
> being
>> called in American might be insulting.
>
> Believe it or not, in at least one part of America when I was a kid, it
> was,
> in the sense that you were an outsider ... and may still be.

Are Texans considered Americans by the rest of the country or are they just
Texans? :~)

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'd suggest that the general consensus is that the saw is acceptable as
> long
> as money doesn't have to be spent on false activations and as long as the
> tendency to use unsafe practices around the Sawstop do not take over
> because
> of it's safety features.
>
> In other words, if I needed a tablesaw, I'd consider the Sawstop as being
> completely practical as long as I don't needlessly have to spend money or
> become a danger to myself while operating it.
>
>
I totally agree. I suspect that the misfires were taken care of in a
favorable manner.

No, I wouldn't. There are still a few of us in the US that see ethics as
more important than money. We're getting damned rare though.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:SKLOf.39808

> Well, wouldn't you, if you were in their shoes?

"John Carlson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I guess I've had it wrong all these years. I always thought capitalism
had
> something to do with building a superior product so the public would
freely
> choose to buy it, not with lobbying the government to force people to buy
> something that they didn't want.

That's capitalism with a conscience. True capitalism is every person for
themselves.

On 26 Feb 2006, Leon spake unto rec.woodworking:

>
> "Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Technologically it is interesting, however it has failed miserably
>> from a business perspective since the public doesn't want it.
>
> Do you have finantial figures to back up you claim here? LOL
> Since the saw is in production and selling within a few years of
> having been introduced I would say it is a success despite personal
> feelings about the saw.
>
>> Further reason to not patronize the company is the fact that in their
>> desperation to recover the development costs for their failed product
>> they are attempting to get the government to require manufacturers to
>> license and incorporate their technology in new saws.
>
> Any law against that? I believe that is called ummmm Capitolism.
>
>> This of course is essentially trying to get the government to force
>> consumers to purchase the product. Not only should you not patronize
>> a company as unethical as the sawstop folks, you should actively
>> oppose their corrupt efforts.

> Oh you have a hard on... I see.

A quick googling of "sawstop" brings your name up 290 times to Pete
C.'s once. Check your own pants.

"Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>
> Well, you certainly have not been following this list much. Nor have you
> watched the TV woodworking shows. The Sawstop folks have been
> demonstrating their device for quite some time without much success.
> Jim


While not successful in getting other companies to license their product
they seem to be pretty successful in bringing the saw to market and having
happy owners. There have been a few complaints of misfires but IIRC the
situations were resolved. Imagine buying an automobile that has no
problems. LOL

> Jack the saw is amazing, and the post here are also. I posted a question a
> few month ago when I had a misfire the thread went on for days. But the
> saw
> is great will be ordering a second one soon.
> Joe
>

So, Joe...what I'm really wondering is when it misfires, does it kill the
saw blade? And if so, did the SawStop folk offer to replace it for you?

Mike

"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Sorry, there's a reason there is safety equipment. The above is like
> saying you don't need to use the saw guard or the splitter or push
> sticks, your finger fits between the fence and the blade... sort of...
>
> The safety equipment we have now works just fine, we don't need
> another piece of mandatory, expensive equipment, that isn't
> demonstrated to be any better than what we have, any more than I'm
> sure rollerbladers would be terribly happy to be told they have to
> wear full-body baloon-suits, just in case.

I bet a bunch of people said that then the common POS guard, that comes on
almost every saw, was mandated also.
Perhaps you do not see the need for more safety equipment but enough people
did to warrant SawStop making the commitment to see this through.

If you google this group for sawstop, you will find hours of reading ahead
of you.

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" <"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> Okay, I watched the video and all I could say was "WOW!". This saw is
> probably fairly expensive. Besides, I have a nice one and am always
> very careful.
>
> http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-videos.htm
>
> But it only takes one mistake to lose a finger. Click on the link and
> watch the videos linked on the site. It's amazing. I have to ask - is
> this for real or is this some kind of high tech joke?
>
> Has anyone else seen this machine before?
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" <"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> Well, for the past 18 months, I've been in NM. Before that, I was in NJ.
> And before that, we lived in Ohio for a couple year. And up until I was
> about 10, I was in upstate NY.
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> Jack
>
> stoutman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Where have you been?
>>
>
Well, you certainly have not been following this list much. Nor have you
watched the TV woodworking shows. The Sawstop folks have been demonstrating
their device for quite some time without much success.
Jim

"Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The system does indeed destroy the blade when it fires (correctly or
> incorrectly). The blade is embedded into I believe an aluminum brake
> shoe of sorts, about the only way to stop it that fast.
>
> I prefer the most reliable safety system i.e. intelligence. I do not
> place any part of my body in the "line of fire" of the saw blade when I
> use my saw. This includes not standing in the potential path of thrown
> wood or blade teeth in addition to keeping fingers safely away from the
> blade.


Good Luck with that.

"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I'm not trying to force everyone to use my services though. They are.
> They're not fighting to have *SOME* safety equipment mandated on all
> saws, they're fighting to have *THEIR* safety equipment mandated. And
> of course, since they own the patent on their equipment, every time
> any saw manufacturer sells a saw, they get a paycheck.

And what about the other side of the story? From everything that I could
gather, all the other tablesaw manufacturers banded together to keep Sawstop
out of the market. Reason being that incorporating Sawstop technology on
their own products, would cost them profits. The idea was that if they all
spoke as a single unifying force, there was much less chance they'd be sued
for selling potentially dangerous equipment.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701/disruptor-gass.html

On one hand, I agree with you that legislation forcing the Sawstop equipment
on people is tantamount to an attempt at a cash grab from everybody. The
other side of the equation is that all the other manufactures might deserve
to be forced to capitulate to the technology. Read the article and decide
for yourself.

The Doug Payne entity posted thusly:

>It's also a verb.
>
>mandate (mæn'deIt), v. [f. L. manda¯t-, ppl. stem of manda¯re to enjoin,
>command.]

And of course, this being Usenet, one might also point out that any
noun can be verbed, and any verb can be nouned.

Forte Agent complained about 'verbed', I'm adding it to it's
dictionary'. :-)

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Leon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So the tech would not be as good if it was mandated?
>
>
> "Mandated" is not a word.
>
> Mandate is a noun. Nouns do not have tenses.
>
> What are you trying to say?

I think he's trying to say that it's required. Abd perhaps that he's
one of those individuals who doesn't like government telling him how to
live his life - at least that aspect of his life that concerns primarily
his own well-being.


I don't know what dictionary you checked but you have to check beyond
the main word entry...

man·date (măn'dāt')
n.
An authoritative command or instruction.
A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its
representative.

A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to
administer a territory.
A region under such administration.
Law.
An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.
A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another
without payment.
tr.v., -dat·ed, -dat·ing, -dates.
To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated desegregation
of public schools.

The above was off the internet. Just to be sure, I checked Webster's
New World Dictionary and they also list it as a transitive verb.

Then again, your main point is well taken. Akin to cutting off one's
nose to spite their face. I'm not aware of any law being broken in
attempting to create a market for one's product through legislation -
especially in matters of safety.

If anyone doubts this, simply look back at things like, oh, seatbelts,
motorcycle helmets, etc. Which came first? The product or the mandated
usage thereof?

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:34:34 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>And there are thousands and thousands that have lost their fingers. Have
>you ever cut yourself ,EVER, with a knife? A lapse of judgement can be
>quite costly and NO ONE is incapable of having an accident regardless of how
>safely you think you operate a TS.

And most of them, if you talk to them, were careless when they had
their accident. It's up to people to be careful and know when a
particular cut is safe and when it is not. If the cut is not safe,
one should not make it regardless of the safety equipment you have on
your saw.

>It certainly is not necesssary but if you can afford it, it's well worth
>consideration.

I never said it couldn't be useful, I just said it was more costly
than it was worth IMO. On the other side, having something like that
could give someone a false sense of security and lead to taking more
risks than they would otherwise.

>Well in your own words, A woodworker exercising reasonable caution has
>nothing to fear from the tablesaw. With proper caution a kick back is not
>going to harm you either.

That's why most saws come with a splitter as standard equipment, it
prevents kickback. Without a splitter, it is difficult, if not
impossible on some cuts, to keep the kerf from closing on the far side
of the blade.

It isn't all that hard to keep your finger away from the spinning
knives of death if you think about what you're doing and you use the
standard safety equipment. How much do you want to bet that most of
the woodworkers who have lost fingers were working without a blade
guard?

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> ROTFLMAO...... Cover up the name on the saw so that the person being
> interrogated would not know that he was safe. It would also satisfy all
the
> people that have concerns for the safety of people that break the law.

That would make a great comedy cop movie. And just to add to the mix in the
movie, have the Sawstop malfunction the one time the cop shoves the
screaming crook's finger into it.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> greatly suspect because it was louder. I have had people bump into me
> while
>> setting at a stop light. Living in Houston I finally gave up riding.
>> Highway riding was the only safe riding.
>
> That would/does drive me nuts. I've never driven a motorbike, but I've had
> people repeatedly bump into me in my wheelchair. I'd guess riders on a
> bike
> would feel much the same as I feel in a wheelchair, it's an extension of
> me.
> Someone carelessly touching it is equivalent to someone touching me
> without
> my permission. I've had people bump me twice, but never a third time
> because
> I usually turn around with a snarl to chew the perpetrator out.

You gotta wonder what they are thinking. If they are thinking at all. Lost
in their own little worlds.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> The general consensus is that most every one here would rather not buy the
> saw for personal reasons. About 10% here think it is a great idea also.
It
> sells for about the same price of a Powermatic cabinet saw, so pricing is
> competitive considering all the features. Actual owners seem to be quite
> pleased with the saw although on occasion there have some misfires that
were
> later corrected.

I'd suggest that the general consensus is that the saw is acceptable as long
as money doesn't have to be spent on false activations and as long as the
tendency to use unsafe practices around the Sawstop do not take over because
of it's safety features.

In other words, if I needed a tablesaw, I'd consider the Sawstop as being
completely practical as long as I don't needlessly have to spend money or
become a danger to myself while operating it.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:37:55 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Honestly, I think you're being a little short-sighted. I certainly don't
>agree with Sawstop trying to get its technology mandated, but I can easily
>see it's value. There's always going to be the unknown that suddenly appears
>to bite you in the ass. The Sawstop to me is the same as a seatbelt in a
>car. It's there *if* something unforeseen happens. Nobody, or at least very
>few people I know go out driving to be unsafe, yet accidents happen.

I'm not, and I've always said that I don't think it's a bad idea,
certainly it isn't. I just said that for most people, I think it's an
unnecessary idea. If someone has X amount of money to spend on a
tablesaw, is it better to get the Sawstop and have an inferior saw, or
should you spend your money to get a much better quality saw? I vote
for the better saw. It seems to me that the Sawstop is designed for
people with a little more dollars than sense and yes, I strongly
oppose their trying to force their technology on the rest of us.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> It isn't all that hard to keep your finger away from the spinning
>> knives of death if you think about what you're doing and you use the
>> standard safety equipment. How much do you want to bet that most of
>> the woodworkers who have lost fingers were working without a blade
>> guard?
>
> Honestly, I think you're being a little short-sighted. I certainly don't
> agree with Sawstop trying to get its technology mandated, but I can easily
> see it's value. There's always going to be the unknown that suddenly
> appears
> to bite you in the ass. The Sawstop to me is the same as a seatbelt in a
> car. It's there *if* something unforeseen happens. Nobody, or at least
> very
> few people I know go out driving to be unsafe, yet accidents happen.
>
> As to my opinion on seatbelts for cars, I have a picture that is
> categorical
> evidence that seat belts saves lives ~ my life in this instance.
>

When was the last time somebody lost their finger in a saw accident due to
somebody running into them? I'm sure it's happened (and I'd be really
pissed if somebody did that to me...) but (IMO) the ratio of serious car
accidents to saw accidents has got to be a very large number. If I cut my
finger on a saw, most likely it's my fault, not the fault of somebody else.
If I'm in a car accident it will probably involve somebody else and won't
necessarily be my fault. This is where mandatory safety devices should come
into play.

Glad your still with us.

Gary

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

> Of course, now you're going to have to enlighten me as to why being
> called in American might be insulting. The only way I can envision that is
> if it's used in the context of an insulting sentence.

Can I have some examples, please?
.
.
.
Just kidding.
But I tell, ya.. I'm am sooo sick and fucking tired of the
American/Canadian insults.
I have friends and siblings on both sides of the border.. to me, there
is no border.
The only border to me is the one that costs me money when I try to bring
in spare parts to fix my car. THAT border pisses me off.

Oh.. in case I forget... the unique aspect of Americans AND Canadians is
that we both have out fair share of assholes amongst us. Probably the
same relative percentage of the population... with the possible
exemption of small pockets around the Washington DC and Ottawa areas.

Yup.. there's assholes amongst us.. I know... I can be one sometimes.

r

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

> Down at the sausage factory we no longer make links, but extrude one huge
> sausage and cut it to length on the table saw. Production was up and we
> made a lot of money so we bought some new saws from a company called Saw
> Stop. Looked like a good product, but we've been having a lot of failures
> every time we cut a sausage. What are we doing wrong?

Simple... it's supposed to be:
"Cut the cheese"
"Hide the sausage"

On 26/02/2006 8:47 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Leon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So the tech would not be as good if it was mandated?
>
> "Mandated" is not a word.
>
> Mandate is a noun. Nouns do not have tenses.

It's also a verb.

mandate (mæn'deIt), v. [f. L. manda¯t-, ppl. stem of manda¯re to enjoin,
command.]

1 trans. To command. Obs. rare-0.

2 To commit (one's sermon) to memory. Sc.

3 To assign (territory) under a mandate of the League of Nations. Cf.
mandate sb. 4 b. So man'dated ppl. a.

4 To give a mandate to, to delegate authority to (a representative,
group, organization, etc.). Freq. as man'dated ppl. a., permitted to act
on behalf of a group, etc., approved by means of a mandate.

On 27/02/2006 9:50 AM, Oleg Lego wrote:
> The Doug Payne entity posted thusly:
>
>> It's also a verb.
>>
>> mandate (mæn'deIt), v. [f. L. manda¯t-, ppl. stem of manda¯re to enjoin,
>> command.]
>
> And of course, this being Usenet, one might also point out that any
> noun can be verbed, and any verb can be nouned.
>
> Forte Agent complained about 'verbed', I'm adding it to it's
> dictionary'. :-)

I think that's "verbized" and nounized", isn't it? :-)

On 27/02/2006 1:13 PM, Swingman wrote:

> [...] when I was out fishing or hunting and came up on one of those tar
> paper shacks, I heard the occupants say, in French, "Here comes an
> American".

Sounds like some places in Quebec;
just substitute Canadian for American :-)

You do indeed have it wrong. Capitalism is about making money.
It has nothing to do with the superiority of the product.

VHS beat out Beta.
PC's outsell Macintosh.

Marketing trumps technology.


John Carlson wrote:

> I guess I've had it wrong all these years. I always thought capitalism had
> something to do with building a superior product so the public would freely
> choose to buy it, not with lobbying the government to force people to buy
> something that they didn't want.
>
> To reply by e-mail, use jcarlson631 at yahoo dot com
> -- jc

You really think there's such thing as "concensus" in a usenet
newsgroup?

Leon wrote:
> Umm This has been discussed time and time again in the last 3 or so years.
>
> The general consensus is that most every one here would rather not buy the

Upscale wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> shop someone trips and falls on the machine. I will then post this
>> thread so you can remember that you don't need additional protection,
>> and if you or yours did something to yourself by accident, you may have
>> deserved it.
>
> I was thinking of an accident happening through no fault of your own. The
> dog comes in and brushes against your leg distracting you. Something falls
> off a shelf startling you. A power failure plunges you into darkness and you
> slip against the still spinning blade in the dark.
>
snip

I don't recall anything about Sawstop still working for any length of
time after the power goes out to prevent this. The owners manual
http://www.sawstop.com/Cabinet_Saw_Manual.pdf page 11 of 100 says "To
prevent loss of Sawstop protection during coast down, do not turn off
main power until blade has stopped spinning."
UPS for a table saw?
Joe