SawStop

[Mike Marlow]

I never suggested or stated that I was anxious to trust my safety to anything outside of myself. In fact, I state exactly otherwise.

Perhaps. Like I said, or more accurately, as my position implies, I don't know, but I'm willing to consider it and to watch for the evidence rather than demean it absent that evidence.

Yes, but what does that matter? I was speaking to the accuracy of their claims as objected to by you. Or perhaps as questioned by you.

Yes, they can. As well, they can incur only very minor injuries. The argument works both ways. My only point in entering this discussion was to point out that they only claimed very specific benefits and the discussion prior to that was that they weren't meeting other standards of protection, even though they never claimed to.

Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty of a little rhetoric from time to time myself.

I believe I did.

inconvenient

Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are not. They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of injury. It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more encompassing objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither you nor I work for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what the objective of their product is. It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside of that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden stop. Are they at all worthwhile? Are there times when they do not prevent an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries that can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a waste of time. All it does is define their application and their benefit. Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce injury. If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced injuries in cars.

[Mike Marlow]

You are certainly entitled not to buy their claim. But... it was you that raised the strawman argument obligations and advertising. Reference you quote above where you state that sawstop does not state their limitations, or even suggest there are any. Throughout this, I've never suggested or stated that I buy any of their claims, that I believe in their product or anything of the like. All I have done is question initially, why you seemed to hold such a contrary opinion of the product and then subesequently, I responded to a series of red herrings and strawmen that you threw out. So far, you've really presented a pretty unconvincing argument, but that's ok because I don't believe you were actually trying to convince anyone else not to buy a sawstop saw. Good thing.

Don't know much about sales do you? But then again, it's always easier to hang on some cliche - it has more rhetorical value.

[J. Clarke]

I'm sorry, but you're the one raising the strawman--do yourself a favor and don't waste your time trying to sell me anything--I don't respond to that approach.

I did not say that they were "obligated" to do anything, I said that they had not done certain things. It is you who are twisting that into some kind of argument about "obligation".

Contrary to what? I hold a _negative_ opinion of the product. That is only "contrary" if the majority opinion is positive, which it does not appear to be, at least not in this community.

Please quote these "red herrings and strawmen". The thing is being marketed as being a safety device. That being the case it is legitimate to question its effectiveness in that role.

I haven't presented any "argument" at all. I've questioned its utility. And rather than addressing any question of utility you have kept on about the obligations of advertisers. If anyone is presenting "red herrings and straw men" it is you.

Let me reiterate--I don't give a hoot in Hell what they advertise or whether they are obligated to advertise anything. I care whether the damned thing works well enough to be useful. And their advertising has not made a convincing case for this.

If you want to buy one be my guest. But don't come crying to me when you lose your hand in it.

More than you clearly. Because if the approach you are using is what you call "salesmanship" then, well, if you had been in my office trying to sell me something then about three posts back I would have made sure the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Another one you haven't learned. Don't argue with the customer. If he has a low opinion of salesmen and your behavior reinforces that opinion, which your behavior is doing, then you are _not_ going to get the sale.

Trust me.

[J. Clarke]

If you are going to rely on slowness of movement for safety then there is no need for the Sawstop at all. If you move your hand into the blade slowly enough then you can stop at exactly the same point at which the hot dog is stopped in the demonstrations.

And this is not about their claims, it is about the efficacy of their device.

Huh? I don't recall stating in any post that I cared the slightest iota what you thought about the Sawstop. In fact even if I had, your attitude is making me care less and less.

Then why did you take it up with me?

Are they? Is the "form of injury" that they "address" in fact "common"? Or is that just your uninformed opinion?

If you don't work for them then why are you working so hard at defending them?

I'm sorry, but you are once again going off on a tangent by assuming without any proof whatsoever that the circumstance in which the Sawstop is effective is one that occurs commonly enough to be a matter of concern.

So how many injuries will it "reduce"? Do you have a number? Or just more hot air?

I'm sorry, but it's clear that you are more concerned with truth in advertising than with safety. Which is what I expect from an incompetent salesman who would rather spend time arguing with strangers on the Internet than serviceing his paying customers. That being the case it is abundantly clear that you have nothing to say that is worth my time to listen to. G'day.

[Mike Marlow]

My attitude? What exactly is "my attitude"? Througout this discourse you are the one who has thrown sarcasm in. I merely left your sarcasm in the included text in order to address the point or lack thereof that you posed.

Have you looked at the included text? It was your comment. It was included in my reply.

Tag, you're it. I've already admitted that I had no statistical evidence on my side and was only speaking from what I believed to be the case. Now - you opinion is somehow more informed?

I'm not - why are you working so hard to defame something you no nothing of and have yet to present a credible argument against?

Your evidence? Besides your assertion, that is. You may have it for all I know and if you do, I will be the first to acknowledge that and credit you for being educated in that area. But... so far you haven't presented any, just an objection to the product based on nothing.

You are just being difficult John. I entered this discussion hoping for a reasonable adult discussion and it's really clear from your contributions that you don't share that hope. Go ahead, keep throwing a bunch of irrelevant side tracks out there, all it does is demonstrate that you really don't have anything to say, you just want to be difficult.

Clearly no clue. And just what are you doing? John, you have presented yourself to be a complete ass in this entire discussion. You would shit to know how successful I've been. You'd just hate salesmen all the more because you'd have something more to be jealous of and resentful of. For all of your "concern for safety", I didn't see your name on any patents for safety devices. Yeah - all hot air and distractions, that's all you've presented here. You're right - Good day.

[Mike Marlow]

Not to worry John - the stuff I sell requires that I meet with people who can conduct an inteligent discussion and actually know something. Confrontational people like you are best left to the competition.

You really should not try to teach sales courses John. First you have to actually understand something about the field.

[GregP]

It's hard to imagine running wood through a table saw without "the need to think." Maybe you're capable of that and there may be others like you. But I suspect that you're in a small minority.

Right there you've listed another reason to keep thinking: you're going to lose at least $150 if you goof, plus maybe a nice chunk of wood.

I don't know of anyone who has posted in this n.g. who has the wherewithal or the will to force this saw on you. Do you ?

[snowdog]

Lets put it this way. If you are on top of a tall building and you are close to the edge, you will have a tendency to much more careful about what you do if a railing is not there. Oddly enough the railing doesn't even have to be strong enough to keep you from going over the edge, just the fact that it is there is enough to cause you to be less attentive than if it was not there are all. If you put a device on a saw that will (hopefully) stop the blade if you touch it, you will have a tendency to do things you normally would not do on the table saw. Perhaps not use that pushstick that is just out of reach, or cut a piece that is way too small without the proper support. It is part of the human condition to get "lazy" when the percieved level of danger decreases.

I am not goin to argue that in the (unlikely) event a person does make contact with the blade, the cost of the blade and safety device becomes trivial, of course it does. However, when you weigh the cost vs. the risk, I don't believe the risk in this case is great enough to justify the cost. This is no different than other decisions made in the wood shop, there are those who will argue you must wear a dust mask at all times in the shop, because the risk of inhaling the dust that you will generate justifies the need for the mask. There are others who will only wear a mask (or respirator) only when working with certain types of wood or other products. It is a decision each person has to make for himself (or herself).

The makers of this device have petitioned the Federal Government to make this device mandatory on all tablesaws (I won't argue with you on specific sizes of saws, suffice it to say that is there ultimate goal). This is equivalent to forcing it on the general populace. I will grant you that they probably do not post on this n.g., though I am pretty sure that they (or someone in their organization) lurk here.

John C.

>

[Herman Family]

I suppose this has the same level of moral hazard as a seat belt. You don't really need them until you need them, and that one moment of not thinking does you in. I suppose we all have some pretty good stories about near misses that we've had or seen along the way. Perhaps from not thinking. Perhaps from being tired. Possibly from being distracted for a moment. Maybe from inexperience.

And if it fires correctly will save $30,000 in hospital bills, months of rehabilitation, and an SWMBO from selling every last tool in the shop.

I don't think it should be a mandatory item. I think it should be readily available at a reasonable price. I don't have a problem with someone else cutting their fingers off. I just want to save mine as well as those of anyone who uses my shop.

Michael

[Mike Marlow]

I agree that it should not be mandatory. I don't have any idea how effective it will be in the long run, but I'm willing to see as time plays out. I don't however see any correlation between an individual not using sawstop, and the loss of fingers. Too many people have been using table saws for too many years, with all of their fingers still intact. It's about more than just a gadget mounted on the saw.

[GregP]

I hate high places: I have a hard time standing in front of a floor-to-ceiling window when I'm up in a tall hotel, tho I used to paint houses for a living, including very large Victorians... the need to eat overcame the fear of heights .....

You may be right, there is likely to be a subconscious influence on how scared you are of the saw with the device on it. But I wonder about how much that will weigh on someone willing to lay out the money for this saw. I almost always wear a seat belt when in a car and my van has airbags. I really don't think that I drive more carelessly because I know I am safer and I go slower as I get older. I think that people who are likely to take more risks - as I was when I was younger - are the ones most likely to be careless. But I don't think that they are likely to buy this saw in the first place.

What I meant was that the image in my mind of not being careful resulting in the loss of a sawblade and a cartridge for $150 or so would make me be more careful, even if I thought that the device would make me invulnerable.

I don't know if I will buy this saw. I decided to get a band saw first and get by with it and miter and circular saws for a year or so before buying a table saw, if ever. If I do, I'd like to consider this one but I won't if they're still pursuing this regulation.

[CW]

You're right. I'm going to start a petition to have all airbags and seatbelts removed from cars. All guards should be removed from all machinery. All warning signs in places of danger should be removed. People should know when something is dangerous and act accordingly.

[Ba r r y]

I propose that everyone should be required to wear full NHL approved hockey goalie protective gear, with the addition of mattresses strapped on in front and back.

Stiff penalties should be dealt to scofflaws!

Barry