Tablesaw lawsuit

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Saw

What a genius !!!!! I am inspired now !!!!!

I am going to stick a cross pen in my eye and sue cross for $1,000,000,000
because they should have provided safeguards to keep me from pokeing my eye out with one of thier pens.

Pure genius !!!!

God Bless America !!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Grvado said:
What a genius !!!!! I am inspired now !!!!!

I am going to stick a cross pen in my eye and sue cross for $1,000,000,000
because they should have provided safeguards to keep me from pokeing my eye out with one of thier pens.

Pure genius !!!!

God Bless America !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Do I see a new Utube craze????:rolleyes:
 
I have always loved Sue. Of course, I married her too!:biggrin:
 
I can't even bear to follow the link. I get so pissed off every time I see something like this.

George Carlin used to do a routine about how we go over the top with safety issues just to protect stupid people. If I remember correctly, the example he gave was in regards to high voltage boxes. His point was that the words,"Do Not Touch" were unnecessary. Any dipsh*t with half a brain should no not to touch it. Anybody stupid enough to touch it, deserves to be shocked.
 
The person who invented the SawStop is a lawyer.
And he tried to get laws passed that every saw manufacturer had to license his technology because it made all saws safer.
Failed.

I remember years ago when someone successfully sued Cessna because the seat latch on his seat failed. The Plane was 15 years old and parts wear out. Raised the cost on all planes about $3K from then on.

Tort reform will not stop this. Well educated jurors will. Our schools do not produce people who are well educated.

Spoken as a lawyer but this is not legal advice.

Lee
 
I know a guy that stuck his hand in a snow blower right below that sign that said "do not place hand in side" and lost the tip of his finger. He has lawyers in the family and they said lets sue. At least he was a real guy and said "it was my fault"
 
I remember a comedian having a joke about not being surprised by stupid jury rulings, "what do you expect from 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty".
 
Having lost the use of one finger pretty much totally, and cutting half of another on off, I would like to sue my self for doing what I did, The flesh detection/ Saw Stop was available at the time, but like the guy in the article I was using a cheap piece of crap delta, and I do miss my fingers terribly, but it wasn't Delta fault, I was the Idiot that caused the accident.
As a nation who's economy is regulated by Lawyers , when are we going to take responsibility for our own dumb arse mistakes. we wonder why Dr's charge so much, ever see their malpractice insurance bills?
 
I think it's unfair to assume the guy was stupid. Maybe the accident it was unavoidable. So maybe we can avoid calling the guy stupid without cause.

I find it odd that manufacturers wouldn't want this technology in their saws. After all, by claiming that their saw is safe if certain safety precautions are followed, aren't they basically admitting that table saws are inherently dangerous thus the need for safety precautions? What's the point of safety precautions? To minimize the risk of serious injury. Well, wouldn't this technology virtually eliminate the risk of serious injury? So, if they're going to go on about safety precautions, why not put their money where their mouth is and make their saw totally safe. Sounds like a good business move to me. No matter what the inventor's motives, it's a good idea. Even if the guy is a lawyer and he's trying to make it illegal not to use his product, it's a good idea. I'm sure the guys who invented seat belts, air bags and safety switches on guns had ulterior motives...not likely. :biggrin:
 
babyblues said:
I think it's unfair to assume the guy was stupid. Maybe the accident it was unavoidable. So maybe we can avoid calling the guy stupid without cause.

I find it odd that manufacturers wouldn't want this technology in their saws. After all, by claiming that their saw is safe if certain safety precautions are followed, aren't they basically admitting that table saws are inherently dangerous thus the need for safety precautions? What's the point of safety precautions? To minimize the risk of serious injury. Well, wouldn't this technology virtually eliminate the risk of serious injury? So, if they're going to go on about safety precautions, why not put their money where their mouth is and make their saw totally safe. Sounds like a good business move to me. No matter what the inventor's motives, it's a good idea. Even if the guy is a lawyer and he's trying to make it illegal not to use his product, it's a good idea. I'm sure the guys who invented seat belts, air bags and safety switches on guns had ulterior motives...not likely. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily good business. From what I read, it would cost $100-200 per machine to add this technology. Plus 8% fees per unit as part of the licensing from the inventor. These costs would likely cut out a large chunk of the market as the saws would become too expensive for the average home hobbyist or contractor. Couple that with the cost of replacement when the unit trips. $65 for a replacement cartridge and the cost of a new saw blade, which can run upwards of $120.

There is also the problem with nuisance trips. Wet or moist wood being the prime example. There is also some evidence apparently that when the cartridge fires, there is a possibility of carbide teeth being thrown off the blade at the operator. And while we're on the subject of safety, this technology does not prevent kickback, which is much more likely and equally dangerous event. Yes, I know that table saws come with blade guards and anti-kickback pawls. How many of us remove them from the table saw or don't install them all together? People routinely defeat that safety mechanism, why wouldn't someone find a way to defeat the SawStop mechanism to avoid nuisance trips and then "forget" to reset it? Is that stupid? Possibly. Is that a risk that folks take? All the time. Should we sue manufacturers over our own inability to calculate risk? No way.
 
Babyblues that is a good point but remember when we make something idiot proof we then breed a bigger idiot! At some point we need to take responsibility for something we do, as it is now it is always someone elses fault and common sense is falling by the wayside!!
 
I can see the next television ad. HAVE YOU BEEN INJURED USING YOUR TABLESAW. CALL OUR LAW FIRM AND WE WILL GET YOU THE COMPENSATION YOU DESERVE. CALL 1-800-DUMBA$$ All jokes aside the big problem we have is 12 fools sitting on a jury who think what the heck lets give him the money,after all it's a big company and their insurance is going to pay it anyway. They tend to forget the insurance has to get the money though premiums paid by the companies. Then the companies have to get the money for the premiums by raising their prices. So in the long run we all are the ones paying for these stupid awards.
 
bgibb42 said:
Anybody seen this yet?

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/mald...6/man_wins_15m_in_first_of_its_kind_saw_case/

Yeah. Blame the saw, not the operator. Incredible.
Click to expand...

I saw this over on FFW forum... you would think that if you bought a tool that has a sharp spinning blade that goes several thousand rpms, you would kinda think about watching where you put your fingers..... I'm scared to death of and respect all of my saws, so I pay strict attention where and how I approach both of them.... I like my fingers and plan on taking them with me to where ever I wind up at the end of this life.
 
I think this whole fiasco can be summed up quite nicely by those immortal words of Forrest Gump's mama: " Stupid is as stupid does."

What a ridiculous world we live in!
 
I'm sueing Stanley. They have the most dangerous tool in my shop and there isn't a single warning label on the entire thing. Heck it didn't even come with operating instructions. The culprit????

The infamous Stanley Philips head screw driver. I have more scars from it than any other tool.
 

Attachments

  • 60-001_mid_res.jpg
    60-001_mid_res.jpg
    5.5 KB · Views: 68
First I wonder how well this verdict will stand up on appeal since the technology was available but not chose. Saw Stop is patented but the inventor offered it to all manufacturers of table saw before starting his own line of saws. As far as I know it is still available to other manufacturers. they do not want to have to redesign there saws to fit it. All I can say is buy your dream saw now, you think you can't afford it now. It may not even be available tomorrow.
 
The guy had the option of buying a saw with the technology and made the conscious decision to buy one without it. I want the air conditioning in my '88 jeep to work, but it didn't come with it and I didn't choose the option so I don't get the benefits of it. How hard is that to understand?
 
You should read a book on how people became deceased over the history of the United States. Things happen to them that are completely coincidental. We live in a modern age with safeguards, but the machinery we work with is also more powerful and sometimes unpredictable. Go easy on yourself.
 
bgibb42 said:
It's not necessarily good business. From what I read, it would cost $100-200 per machine to add this technology. Plus 8% fees per unit as part of the licensing from the inventor. These costs would likely cut out a large chunk of the market as the saws would become too expensive for the average home hobbyist or contractor. Couple that with the cost of replacement when the unit trips. $65 for a replacement cartridge and the cost of a new saw blade, which can run upwards of $120.
Click to expand...

But that's what I have a problem with. I can understand minimizing cost and all that as good business, but I think that reducing the risk of serious injury in using a company's product is good business as well. I guess my question is: Is it worth the money to avoid losing a finger and all of the expense and agony of dealing with the repercussions of that? To me it is. I'm not sure I agree with making it mandatory for every manufacturer to incorporate this guy's system in their saws, but I think it would behoove manufacturers to start working on their own system. Maybe this guy could even come up with a system that could be purchased and installed independently by the consumer. I know there would be a whole new list of concerns there too (consumer doesn't install it correctly etc.) but it's a start.

bgibb42 said:
There is also the problem with nuisance trips. Wet or moist wood being the prime example. There is also some evidence apparently that when the cartridge fires, there is a possibility of carbide teeth being thrown off the blade at the operator. And while we're on the subject of safety, this technology does not prevent kickback, which is much more likely and equally dangerous event. Yes, I know that table saws come with blade guards and anti-kickback pawls. How many of us remove them from the table saw or don't install them all together? People routinely defeat that safety mechanism, why wouldn't someone find a way to defeat the SawStop mechanism to avoid nuisance trips and then "forget" to reset it? Is that stupid? Possibly. Is that a risk that folks take? All the time. Should we sue manufacturers over our own inability to calculate risk? No way.
Click to expand...

In the end, there's always a way to circumvent safety precautions for the sake of ease or time. You're right, that's not the manufacturer's fault. For example, it's not their fault if someone doesn't use the blade guards and anti-kickback pawls, but wouldn't they be negligent for not providing them? Whether someone actually uses a safety mechanism correctly or not is irrelevant when it comes to the manufacturers responsibility to provide for operator safety. The manufacturer can't eliminate operator error, but it can give operators a chance to use the safety mechanisms they have included. The SawStop mechanism wouldn't be any different in that regard. Of course if these problems really do exist with the SawStop mechanism, they should be addressed before making the mechanism mandatory, but like I said, it would be a good start.
 
I guess Manufactures should provide classes to educate buyers and users oh and lets not forget to provide safety glass and goggles for the user as well as hearing protection. Lets not stop there they must also provide a respirator and or dust collector as well to protect form dust and such. Where do we take over as purchasers? I lost the tip of a finger to a chain saw, yup my fault yea I paid the ER bill, yes I wont do that stupid trick again, lesson learned. Why not sue the Chainsaw company? Because I was holding small branches trimming them and the saw caught and jumped..wrong tool for the job my fault period and I have the scars to prove it!!!
 
Babyblues
I think you are missing the point. The guy (or boss) could have bought the sawstop for $1500-$3000 that has the safty device he wanted. He didnt want to pay that and opted for the $99 Ryobi. To cut off his fingers I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that on top of getting the cheap saw he didnt install or removed the blade gaurd. So he took a saw that was less safe then the Sawstop that he wouldnt spend the money on and made it even more unsafe by removing the only blade safty feature.
I dont think that the whole world should have to pay for the people that should not be on the survival side of "survival of the fittest".
I know how to use a table saw correctly. I have the $99 Ryobi because it is small and "CHEAP". I would love a 16"+ Tannewitz, but I cant afford a $3,750 for a used one. Its the choice I made. If the Sawstop now needs to be used on all saws that $99 saw I bought 3 years ago is now $119 retail plus $250 for the unit and royalties for a total of $369 not includeing that you have more parts to go bad and need replacing. I would still be looking to buy a table saw.
 
HSTurning said:
Babyblues
I think you are missing the point. The guy (or boss) could have bought the sawstop for $1500-$3000 that has the safty device he wanted. He didnt want to pay that and opted for the $99 Ryobi. To cut off his fingers I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that on top of getting the cheap saw he didnt install or removed the blade gaurd. So he took a saw that was less safe then the Sawstop that he wouldnt spend the money on and made it even more unsafe by removing the only blade safty feature.
I dont think that the whole world should have to pay for the people that should not be on the survival side of "survival of the fittest".
I know how to use a table saw correctly. I have the $99 Ryobi because it is small and "CHEAP". I would love a 16"+ Tannewitz, but I cant afford a $3,750 for a used one. Its the choice I made. If the Sawstop now needs to be used on all saws that $99 saw I bought 3 years ago is now $119 retail plus $250 for the unit and royalties for a total of $369 not includeing that you have more parts to go bad and need replacing. I would still be looking to buy a table saw.
Click to expand...
And Matt, don't forget, it will still break everytime you try to cut a hotdog with the saw.
 
babyblues said:
But that's what I have a problem with. I can understand minimizing cost and all that as good business, but I think that reducing the risk of serious injury in using a company's product is good business as well. I guess my question is: Is it worth the money to avoid losing a finger and all of the expense and agony of dealing with the repercussions of that? To me it is. I'm not sure I agree with making it mandatory for every manufacturer to incorporate this guy's system in their saws, but I think it would behoove manufacturers to start working on their own system. Maybe this guy could even come up with a system that could be purchased and installed independently by the consumer. I know there would be a whole new list of concerns there too (consumer doesn't install it correctly etc.) but it's a start.



In the end, there's always a way to circumvent safety precautions for the sake of ease or time. You're right, that's not the manufacturer's fault. For example, it's not their fault if someone doesn't use the blade guards and anti-kickback pawls, but wouldn't they be negligent for not providing them? Whether someone actually uses a safety mechanism correctly or not is irrelevant when it comes to the manufacturers responsibility to provide for operator safety. The manufacturer can't eliminate operator error, but it can give operators a chance to use the safety mechanisms they have included. The SawStop mechanism wouldn't be any different in that regard. Of course if these problems really do exist with the SawStop mechanism, they should be addressed before making the mechanism mandatory, but like I said, it would be a good start.
Click to expand...

Okay let's examine this from a slightly different perspective for a second. First the facts:

1)Saw-Stop technology existed when he purchased the saw.
2)He decided to buy a saw without the saw-stop technology.
3)He had an accident that the technology would have prevented or minimized.
4)He sued the manufacturer because they didn't use the existing technology on the saw he purchased.
5)He won the case.

Okay, those are the facts. Now let's look at the precedent it sets.

If I'm driving a car that doesn't have traction control, but was purchased new at the time that traction control technology existed on other cars. I have an accident in the car that traction control would have prevented/minimized. I am now able to sue the manufacturer for selling me a car that I chose to buy that didn't have something that I wasn't willing to pay for.

And yes, I bet the Auto Manufacturers are having their lawyers look long and hard at this case.
 
HSTurning said:
Babyblues
I think you are missing the point. The guy (or boss) could have bought the sawstop for $1500-$3000 that has the safty device he wanted. He didnt want to pay that and opted for the $99 Ryobi. To cut off his fingers I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that on top of getting the cheap saw he didnt install or removed the blade gaurd. So he took a saw that was less safe then the Sawstop that he wouldnt spend the money on and made it even more unsafe by removing the only blade safty feature.
I dont think that the whole world should have to pay for the people that should not be on the survival side of "survival of the fittest".
I know how to use a table saw correctly. I have the $99 Ryobi because it is small and "CHEAP". I would love a 16"+ Tannewitz, but I cant afford a $3,750 for a used one. Its the choice I made. If the Sawstop now needs to be used on all saws that $99 saw I bought 3 years ago is now $119 retail plus $250 for the unit and royalties for a total of $369 not includeing that you have more parts to go bad and need replacing. I would still be looking to buy a table saw.
Click to expand...

If you go back and read the first post I made in this thread, I believe I made this very point. He could have purchased a saw with the technology to prevent his injury, but went with the $100 Royobi, so the fault lies with him. Speculation on what he may or may not have done that may or may not have contributed to him almost losing his fingers is irrelevant to the conversation. I certainly don't think suing a manufacturer solves anything, if there is indeed a problem that needs solving.

So far, all anyone has focused on are the negatives or the possible problems with incorporating SawStop technology into existing table saw designs. I'm just trying to suggest maybe it could be incorporated as an added safety precaution.
 
Babyblues
I have been back to this thread many times and read all the post but I didnt read it all in one sitting so i didnt realize your point in the first post.
All I am saying in is that if he wanted the feature he should have bought that saw.
I would love a Corvette and it has a feature that allows it to go almost 200mph. I couldnt afford it so I bought a Neon. A Volvo is one of the safest cars on the road. Why dont all the safty features of the Volvo come in every car. MONEY. You get what you can afford. I see no reason for it to be a standard safty feature on all saws if you triple or quadruple the cost of an entry level item.
 
Charlie,
After meeting the manufacturer of the Saw Stop personally a few years back at the Chicago tool show, and then listeneing to him on CNN whine before congress to have them pass a law to incorporate this as a mandatory feature, I have come to the conclusion is not a damn yankee. (Then again, YOU are from Joisy, so neither are you:wink:)
I believe someone on this site that we both know and lives a state below me (that should narrow it down) even offered to demo the saw for them without using a hot dog, but in fact offering up a finger or three instead.

The other nice feature that has been brought to light about the technology(although on the internet, so I KNOW it is true) is that wet wood, and no, not green, can set it off.

Jerry
 
babyblues said:
.....So far, all anyone has focused on are the negatives or the possible problems with incorporating SawStop technology into existing table saw designs. I'm just trying to suggest maybe it could be incorporated as an added safety precaution.
Click to expand...
Well that's because I'm hard pressed to find any positives in this story!

A guy has an accident, so what, accidents happen everyday to millions of people in all walks of life. Did he seek out legal counsel or did someone seek him out, we don't know.

Regardless of how or why they were initiated, this and other similar law suits (I hear 50 have jumped on the gravy train so far), will in one way or another have an impact on the price we pay for tools and how our tools are configured in the future.

Is the saw stop a good idea, perhaps, but I personally don't want it on my saw, just like I don't like other things on various tools in my shop and I darn sure don't want someone telling me I have to have it on my saw because some slick, greedy individual found a way to peddle his products.
 
I'm a lawyer, so lawyer and lawsuit bashing threads always make me a little sad. There are so many myths and falsehoods perpetuated in these threads, that I wouldn't know where to start with responding to them.

Do I agree with the verdict in this case? No. But there is a process (appeals) for getting it reviewed by a higher court. In most cases like this, the appellate courts greatly reduce the verdict. I will say this, if you study the actual history of personal injury litigation you will see that manufacturers of products often bypass safety mechanisms that could be adopted with relative ease to save money. I'm not saying that is always the case, but it has been the case with a whole lot of products. When lawsuits begin to stick, the manufacturers roll out products that are safer.

Automobiles are a good example. Shoulder harness safety belts in middle and back seats, for example, could have been installed in all vehicles decades ago, but the manufacturers continued to use the cheaper lap belts until their attention was demanded by lawsuits. Were the people who were injured while riding in back seats with lap belts on all idiots who got what they deserved? As between the company that built the car with the lap belt and the person who was injured while using it, which should be responsible for the injuries?

I'm probably the most conservative person that you could ever hope to meet, and I don't condone frivolous lawsuits, but not every lawsuit is frivolous just because it exists. And not every person who is injured by a product is an idiot who got what he deserved. One last example, then I'll let everyone get back to spreading urban legends about various runaway juries -- hand-held circular saws used to carve gouges into people's legs all the time. A person would make a cut, take their finger off the trigger, and lower the saw to their leg. But the blade was still turning and there was no blade guard, so the thigh got sliced open. Was the operator in error? Yes. Could the manufacturer have easily and cheaply installed a braking device and safety guard? Yes. See if you can find a new circular saw now that doesn't have a slow-down mechanism and safety guard. The manufacturers did not decide to add those things out of the kindness of their hearts.

Anyone who wants to know what really happened with the McDonalds coffee lawsuit can find it here (among many other places): http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

A parting thought for your peace and happiness: by and large, human beings are not very smart. We do things all the time that others can look back on and say "well, that guy was a real idiot." It has long been a rule of law in this country that those who manufacture products are responsible for the harm that those products cause when the harm was reasonably foreseeable at the time of manufacturing. I don't think the verdict in this case will stand up on appeal because it doesn't seem to me to meet that test. But is it reasonably foreseeable that scalding hot coffee, intentionally prepared to be far in excess of the temperature that humans can tolerate, might burn someone who is driving with a cup of it in their car (purchased from a drive-in window)?

Ok, I'm off my soap box.
 
Last edited:
jkeithrussell said:
I'm a lawyer, so lawyer and lawsuit bashing threads always make me a little sad. There are so many myths and falsehoods perpetuated in these threads, that I wouldn't know where to start with responding to them.

Do I agree with the verdict in this case? No. But there is a process (appeals) for getting it reviewed by a higher court. In most cases like this, the appellate courts greatly reduce the verdict. I will say this, if you study the actual history of personal injury litigation you will see that manufacturers of products often bypass safety mechanisms that could be adopted with relative ease to save money. I'm not saying that is always the case, but it has been the case with a whole lot of products. When lawsuits begin to stick, the manufacturers roll out products that are safer.

Automobiles are a good example. Shoulder harness safety belts in middle and back seats, for example, could have been installed in all vehicles decades ago, but the manufacturers continued to use the cheaper lap belts until their attention was demanded by lawsuits. Were the people who were injured while riding in back seats with lap belts on all idiots who got what they deserved? As between the company that built the car with the lap belt and the person who was injured while using it, which should be responsible for the injuries?

I'm probably the most conservative person that you could ever hope to meet, and I don't condone frivolous lawsuits, but not every lawsuit is frivolous just because it exists. And not every person who is injured by a product is an idiot who got what he deserved. One last example, then I'll let everyone get back to spreading urban legends about various runaway juries -- hand-held circular saws used to carve gouges into people's legs all the time. A person would make a cut, take their finger off the trigger, and lower the saw to their leg. But the blade was still turning and there was no blade guard, so the thigh got sliced open. Was the operator in error? Yes. Could the manufacturer have easily and cheaply installed a braking device and safety guard? Yes. See if you can find a new circular saw now that doesn't have a slow-down mechanism and safety guard. The manufacturers did not decide to add those things out of the kindness of their hearts.

Anyone who wants to know what really happened with the McDonalds coffee lawsuit can find it here (among many other places): http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

A parting thought for your peace and happiness: by and large, human beings are not very smart. We do things all the time that others can look back on and say "well, that guy was a real idiot." It has long been a rule of law in this country that those who manufacturer products are responsible for the harm that those products cause when the harm was reasonably foreseeable at the time of manufacturing. I don't think the verdict in this case will stand up on appeal because it doesn't seem to me to meet that test. But is it reasonably foreseeable that scalding hot coffee, intentionally prepared to be far in excess of the temperature that humans can tolerate, might burn someone who is driving with a cup of it in their car (purchased from a drive-in window)?

Ok, I'm off my soap box.
Click to expand...
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! 1. Did the man using the saw have all safety equipment in place, blade guard, river. 2. Was he qualified to use the tool? I have seen the saw stop technology demoed, it destroys the blade, and is expensive to replace once it goes off. And it will go off if used to cut wet wood!! Accidents do happen, almost always due to operator mistake. Do no t use a tool if you are not willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your mistakes!!
 
I have a great friend who is a class action attorney, and we've agreed to disagree many times over similar issues. I personally feel that manufacturers do have a responsibility to sell what they are advertising(ie. they should not be allowed to misrepresent their products). I DO NOT feel that manufacturers have a responsibility to make things as safe as possible for their consumers. If that were true, all knife manufacturers would need to start making spoons... Spoons can be used to cut things and are certainly much safer than knives.

Part of capitalism is the ability of a company to compete for earnings based on sales of its product which should be directly related to the quality and desirability of its product. A company that makes and sells inferior products will eventually go away if allowed to compete on an even playing field.

Life is not safe. The things around any given person can be dangerous, and the degree to which they are dangerous is often and usually directly proportional to the intelligence and focus of the individual. There is no cure for stupid or lazy, and I don't feel it's my job to finance the actions of others which might be characterized by one of those adjectives.
 
Last edited:
David Keller said:
I have a great friend who is a class action attorney, and we've agreed to disagree many times over similar issues. I personally feel that manufacturers do have a responsibility to sell what they are advertising(ie. they should not be allowed to misrepresent their products). I DO NOT feel that manufacturers have a responsibility to make things as safe as possible for their consumers. If that were true, all knife manufacturers would need to start making spoons... Spoons can be used to cut things and are certainly much safer than knives.

Part of capitalism is the ability of a company to compete for earnings based on sales of its product which should be directly related to the quality and desirability of its product. A company that makes and sells inferior products will eventually go away if allowed to compete on an even playing field.

Life is not safe. The things around any given person can be dangerous, and the degree to which they are dangerous is often and usually directly proportional to the intelligence and focus of the individual. There is no cure for stupid or lazy, and I don't feel it's my job to finance the actions of others which might be characterized by one of those adjectives.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And, just because humans have proven their stupidity doesn't mean it's the government's job to force industry to build products for the
`lowest common denominator'. It's bad enough that's happening in education.

Who is John Galt?
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom