A Brief Respite From Our "Self" Obsession

[Unisaw A100]

I'm gotta wondering something here about now.

Why are some saw blades covered in Teflon?

UA100

[B a r r y]

Because some aren't.

Barry

[Lawrence L'Hote]

Oh, no, no, no! It's so your food won't stick.

Larry

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Hey, I have one of them, a Freud. Only reason I can think of is they look pretty and they can brag about its advantages to anyone that does not know about how saw teeth are set. Ed [e-mail]

[Pounds on Wood]

Same reason there are variable speed routers, so's you can use them in the kitchen too.

--

[J. Clarke]

Probably keeps gum and tar and whatnot from building up on the faces of the blade.

[bridger]

to keep the eggs from sticking.

sheesh. everybody knows that.

[Larry Jaques]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:16:00 GMT, "Lawrence L'Hote" brought forth from the murky depths:

Y'all beed resawin' yer beans again, L'Hote?

-- Save the Endangered ROAD NARROWS! -|-

Ban SUVs today! -|- Full Service Websites

[jo4hn]

To keep BAD insults from sticking. j4

[B a r r y]

I always wondered how something that covers the part of the blade that dosen't touch wood actually did anything.

The red finish is attractive, though!

Barry

[B a r r y]

I've seen the advantages of a variable speed router, totally different concept.

Talk to me when you have some 3" bits.

Barry

[Preston Andreas]

If your fence is a 1/4" closer to the front of the blade than the back, it might come in handy.

Preston

[loutent]

Because the slight increase in perceived value drops right to the bottom line baby...

Lou

[Greg Millen]

because it keeps them looking shiny in the packaging and they get less pre-sale returns that way. But then, I can be cynical.

[Bay Area Dave]

cynical? that's soft pedaling it!! how about a world class JERK?? (and a pathological liar)

dave

Greg Millen wrote:

[Greg Millen]

Folks, unfortunately BAD the troll has carried this from another thread where I called him on some slanderous comments he made, he seems to be making a habit of this, as he has done it before with rec.photo.digital threads.

I invited him to provide a link to prove his comments and he refused to do so, claiming he was "too lazy to pull up all your nonsense of (sic) Google".

This is how he justifies lies and slander. Reference is here for the slander

and here for the lies. Note that when caught in the lie his response was "so sue me".

BAD, I invite you again to go back to the other thread and substantiate your insinuation that I am likely to be involved in flame wars (with people other than yourself and the other obvious trolls). Again, for a preponderance of proof you will need to find a number of them to show a habitual pattern. To help you along, look at *your* posting history to get an idea of what I mean.

I maintain - with proof and references - you are a liar, a slanderer and a troll. You have yet to substantiate any of your claims which makes you look pretty 'bad'.

You have called me a pathological liar. Once again, please provide references to back up your claims. Because if you don't, you further strengthen my assertion that *you* are the liar and slanderer.

I'll repeat myself from the previous thread:

"Put up or shut up", but I know you won't do either, you can't. You don't have the facts to support the former or the balls to achieve the latter."

[larry in cinci]

[Bay Area Dave]

[Leon]

Easier to clean.

[Greg Millen]

You really are a very good troll , I'll give you that.

You started the baiting in this thread and leave by saying that *I* am baiting *you*.

You also escape presenting any facts that may justify your baiting, lying, trolling and slanderous behaviour.

It would be the stuff of legend were it not so blatantly obvious to anyone reading the last four posts, you cowardly little troll.