It was a pretty silly example of how we would get hurt. Almost as dumb
as saying my rollerskates hit a wet spot and I slipped.
Maybe you are just jumpier than me but I make sure I am firmly planted
and not in a position where I will slip and slide my hand into the
blade. I use push sticks and a sled if that is appropriate. Maybe that
is why I do have all my digits. It occurs to me most "accidents" are
because people get in a hurry and don't plan each cut. You should know
where the woodis , how you will control it and where your fingers are
going to be before, during and after you cut. I am a lot more afraid
of that blade than I am of someone going "BOO" behind me. I might not
even notice them. I certainly don't pay any attention to a loud noise
somewhere else in the shop. Whatever fell, broke or exploded will
still be fell, broke or exploded when I get the saw turrned off.
Maybe it is just tuinnel vision. Keep you mind on the work
My grandfather taught me and my dad enforced it, now it is just habit.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:04:47 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
My Dad actually, so no, I can't kill him. And I don't mean he
intentionally tries to scare me, it's just that when you're working by
yourself and totally focused on your cut and can't hear anything and
then suddenly there's someone else nearby you get startled.
I had to make sure the saw was pointed at the main door so I could see
him come in. I also keep the lights that are on the main switch off,
supposedly to save electricity because it also turns on all the rest
of the lights in the basement. When that light is on I know to be on
high alert for the wandering tool thief.
Frankly, Leuf, those are very weak arguments to put forth in the
interest of Gov mandating a technology that adds significant cost to
Maybe the big heavy thing falling over will do more harm to you than
the TS could.
Years ago my wife did something similar and it never happened again as
I sat her down and explained the potential for danger.
On the job can be a challenge at times. Other subs walking behind me,
etc, etc. But its only when I don't pay proper attention to my
environment that things get risky. With all due respect to your Dad,
you need to make some noise with him. Like many other pieces of
equipment in our daily lives, a TS can go from innocuous to dangerous
in a moments notice...as based on the negligence of the operator.
Big difference don't you think with things that can cause definite instant
injury and other things that may cause health difficulties over a long
period? If you want to really get down to it, your statement is much more of
a red herring than the one you commented on.
Very likely true, but not as immediately costing and the expense of sudden
catastrophic injuries can't be planned for over the long term nearly as well
as for those degenerative diseases.
And yes, I fully realize that eventually, the point might be reached where
even long term planning will not be sufficient to pay for what's needed.
But, these degenerative disease costs are hitting us now from what was
generated in the past 10 years and before. And the expense, to both dollars
and productivity, keep ocurring now and into the future. Are you saying that
the cost of say, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, is less today than the
cost of whirlysharp injuries?
So you're fine to accuse me of ridiculous comparisons, but you feel free to
use them yourself? Grow up, you know damned well I suggested no such
Let me ask you. Knowing what you know now about increasing diabetes and
cardiovascular disease, if one single mandate could have been enacted 30
years ago that would effectively and selectively eliminated the bulk of
these conditions, would you still say it was undesirable? Knowing all the
misery and strife that these two conditions have caused to our society,
would you still be sticking to your "no government involvement"?
Costs are costs, regardless of the nature of the health care. And you were
the one that wanted to dance by saying:
"Big difference don't you think with things that can cause definite instant
injury and other things that may cause health difficulties over a long
period"? I was just following your lead.
I have never said I am against all government involvement, and it is
rhetorically dishonest to try to support your arguments on that kind of
tactic. You seem to be having difficulty with the concept that opposing a
government mandate does not mean you oppose all. However, since you seem
locked into that position, do you support all government involvement since
you seem to support this mandate?
Of course not and I do see your point. I was only trying to illustrate that
government involvement, mandate or whatever does not automatically make it a
bad thing, which is the vibe I seem to be getting from you.
A case could certainly be made that if they had mandatory weight
tresting and rationer food to fat people they would be a lot heathier
... or so the legend goes but that is not the way Americans want to
These discussions are the best argument against national healh care.
Do you really want the people who run the drug war, running a fat
food, hazardous activity war?
No, that certainly would not be the North American way. I don't know, I
guess it comes down to what you've experienced growing up. I know that if
I'd not been born in Canada and born in the bulk of other countries around
the world, my health problems would have killed me over 20 years ago. So I
admit it, I feel lucky in some ways and certainly more appreciative of our
society than some. I know that clouds my judgement, but it's who I am. Sure,
there's lots of things I don't like about Canada, especially in the
disability arena, but it's better than most, so for the most part I think
there's been a good combination of personal choice and government
involvement. I do know that I'd feel really stupid for a long time if I cut
some fingers off on a tablesaw. That's something I'd have a really difficult
time getting over.
I have to answer yes to that question. There was and still is a simple
government mandate that would in fact reduce these medical conditions
substantially. Outlaw red meat. Outlaw white bread. Outlaw refined
sugar. It would be fairly simple to identify those food items that
contribute the most to an unhealthy diet and simply outlaw those
items. Death rates would drop. Physical (as opposed to mental) health
would improve. Natrural life expectancy would probably soar. Life
It could be taken a little further by mandating limited portion sizes
in restaurants and limiting all patrons to one entree. I guess we
could go whole hog and if someone invented and patented the safe food
(ala soylent green maybe) mandate that all meals must incorporate this
"Effectively and selectively" suggests "what if" it could be done simply and
easily. You've posted three foods that have a wide distribution and
eliminating them "effectively and selectively" could not be done easily.
And as an aside, if the elimination of those three foods from your diet
means that your life would suck, then you lead an extremely limited,
Actually, I probably like steak better than you do. If you ever visit
Toronto, I'd be happy to take you out to my favourite steak house and feed
you some. :)
Shrimp cocktail, whiskey sour, rib steak, rare, grilled mushrooms in the
side. In fact, I'll be eating and drinking all those things tomorrow
Closer to a self-indulgent pig out if I can get through it. These last few
years see me bringing sections of the meal home in a doggy bag. It maybe a
piece of cold steak the next day, but most of the taste is still there. One
of the few benefits of getting older is that I can't eat near as much, so
when I get my hands on something good, it usually lasts a little longer.
I've also noticed that I'm more interested in quality these days, not bulk.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.