Re: SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US

[Rick Chamberlain]

Charlie,

I know that all too well. Just rattling Leon's cage. Hope you're doing better.

Rick

[Jim Mc Namara]

There ya'll go - ya done screwed up and got Charlie to hollerin'. Ya know he's been sick - he don't feel good - but did he sit back and let ya'll banter continuously? Nooooo - he gets up with his new-monia and does his best to settle this for ya.

I got your back Charlie - go get some rest and take it easy. :-)

All together now . . . "What a friend we have in Charrrr-leeee"

In all seriousness Charlie - I hope you're feeling better. Pneumonia put me in the hospital 10 years ago for a week - a helluva way to spend Christmas!

Jummy

[Leon]

Charlie, some people just want to piss and moan and have the world their way. They complain about the turn of events and only yell and scream about how it affects them. If you want something bad enough you will work to get it. If they feel their freedom is at risk, they should actively fight to keep it, but don't cry about it. Crying and not doing is simply support for what you are against.

[Jim Mc Namara]

God - it sounds like Designing for the Sexes now!

LOL!

Jums (bored shitless today as you might tell . .. !)

[Leon]

JIM....!!!!!! You really must tune into more MANLY channels..... ;~)

[Rob Stokes]

LOL!!! If only....!

[Charlie Self]

Jim McNamara's band goes:

No hospital. Just huge pills, moxicillin, IIRC. According to the x-rays, the pneumonia is now gone. It is not missed.

Charlie Self

If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. Dorothy Parker

[Charlie Self]

Leon responds:

Ah, well. The real problem with that is you never know who won the argument.

Charlie Self

If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. Dorothy Parker

[Tim Douglass]

Doesn't matter who I argue with, LOML is the one who wins. ;-)

Tim Douglass

[Charlie Self]

Tim Douglass responds:

Sounds familiar.

Charlie Self

Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child. Dan Quayle

[jduprie]

OK, so who do we contact to regirster our opposition to this insanity? Ranting on the rec is one thing, but probably won't accomplish much. Anyone got a connection point for the GPO/CPSC that allows for public comment on proposals?

--JD

Whos already talking to his congressmen about stopping this before it starts.....

proprietary

[Chris]

I think you missed my point. SawStop and seatbelts mandated by the government are both to force the manufacturers to provide safety measures that they otherwise would not. Both add to the cost of the product. Both can be used or not used by the consumer. The ONLY differences here are that SawStop will add much more, percentage wise, to the price of the saw than seatbelts add to the price of a car, and seatbelts can be passively bypassed by simply not using them, whereas SawStop has to be actively bypassed by disabling the device.

On a separate note, from what I have heard liability insurance adds so much to the cost of any power tool that in the (not too) long run we should make up most of the difference.

-Chris

[Andrew Barss]

Robert Bonomi wrote: : In article , : Sam Chambers wrote: :>I hear what you're saying, but that's not really what the petition says. :>True, they've modeled the petition based on what their system can do (makes :>sense, since there's is the only such product), but it doesn't mandate use :>of the SawStop system.

: *EXCEPT* that anything that meets the 'petition' specifications is covered by : _their_ PATENT.

: Thus, _effectively_, giving them a *monopoly* of the market.

Do you have any understanding of the intent of patent law?

-- Andy Barss

[I really hate spam.]

Yes, they are, Leon. Your opinions and the opinions of others who believe the same way you do steer government every day. As you mention later in this letter, though, your opinion won't individually sway the final decision on this matter. That's why I'm going to take some sound advice you've offered in your reply...I'm going to try to ignore anything else about Sawstop in this group after I send this reply, and I'm going to spend my time making sure that my voice is heard where it may do some good. One thing I think I'll do is contact tool manufacturers to try to find out if there's a good reason that they have not chosen to install Sawstop on at least some saws, rather than relying on others' statements that they've heard certain rationales. Maybe there's a problem with the technology that none of us even know about.

Damn ,can't I put in a wish list like any

Leon, that's really the crux of all debate, isn't it? Obviously, each of us believes that the other's opinion is not entirely valid -- otherwise, we would have nothing to argue about. My main problem with the opinion you have expressed in this debate is that you seem to be a bit selfish in your thinking on this issue...you think that mandating Sawstop is a good idea, not because it is good for the country, not because it is a solid governmental decision, but because it will ensure the availability of the technology when purchasing it is more convenient to you. I find that to be a disturbing reason to advocate governmental interference in the free market.

I also think that your argument has caused you to make some rather hypocritical comments, and I think it weakens your own arguments about why we should welcome Sawstop no matter what. Let me break down one of your main arguments:

You have advocated Sawstop as so necessary that you think the federal government should get involved to ensure its survival. You have stated that this device is so valuable that we should not have any problem spending our money on it. In fact, you told me, "Family should always come first and taking care of your self in the shop helps you and your family. A price cannot really be put on you [sic] ability to provide income for your family." However, in the same reply that you included that statement, we established that you are absolutely unwilling to part with "in excess of $1,000" to purchase this safety feature.

Apparently, Leon, you have put a price on your safety and your ability to provide income for your family. Maybe that price is only valid so long as you think that the government will bail out Sawstop and ensure the availability of the technology for your later purchase. I'm not sure. I don't really know you. But I do know that I can't respect your argument that the safety afforded by Sawstop is priceless, so much so that I should want the federal government to intervene essentially on the company's behalf, so long as you demonstrate by your own actions and words that you do not think it is priceless.

By the way, Leon...notice I said I could not respect your argument. Since you seem to be getting a bit angry at the constant arguments against your way of thinking in these threads, I want to clarify. I didn't say I could not respect you...I don't know you. Maybe I would respect you if I knew you, maybe I wouldn't. I simply cannot respect the argument you've put forth in these threads. Eric Ryan E-mail me at eryan /at/ qconline /dot/ com

[I really hate spam.]

Ah...now, here you've got a more interesting and compelling argument, Leon. But...even this argument does not require Sawstop on every saw sold anywhere. Maybe now we can go to a different government agency; OSHA can require Sawstop on table saws in commercial use, just like they require so many other safety devices that are not mandated on the normal consumer. That makes some sense; though there are still issues with too tight government control, there is at least a more compelling reason for the government to intervene on behalf of a class of person who may not have the power to get their employers to voluntarily protect them.

I know this violates my earlier statement that I was going to stop posting on this topic, making me a bit hypocritical, but I couldn't resist commenting on a far more acceptable and reasonable argument. Eric Ryan E-mail me at eryan /at/ qconline /dot/ com

[JackD]

Yes, but...

...the SawStop petition exempts saws 12" and up. Whether this is to avoid antagonizing commercial enterprises (who could/would mount a lobbying campaign against it) or whether it is because stopping a 12" blade is that much harder (the blade has anywhere from 1.5 to 2 times the mass) is not clear, but it is clear that this is not aimed at the commercial woodworker.

-Jack

[Rick Chamberlain]

It'll have to wait til lunchtime - I can't drink beer before I golf.

Agreed.

Yahbut, he could have done an end around and surveyed the potential end users. Nothing like a grassroots market - you can bet that if enough people asked the funeral homes for info on those new burial vaults, he'd have made a mint.

That, or he could have jacked up the price. :-)

Agreed.

Pretty much the case, I suspect. I'd be curious to see how many people actually placed "pre-orders" for the SawStop saw.

Rick

[Bob Schmall]

Grassroots--Har!

For the funeral directors to make the same net dollars at the same profit margin, what would his price have to be? Uh-huh. Exactly what the concrete vaults cost. Not much incentive since the public don't give a damn, and if the knew they'd probably say, "You're putting Louie in styrofoam?" Dig it?

Bob

[Charlie Self]

snip of sensible stuff

Agreed. To reduce problems, just cremate me and lose the ashes in a trash can somewhere.

Charlie Self

We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom. Stephen Vincent Benet