On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 03:29:37PM -0700, Tim May wrote: <snip>
What I do know is that the Deal bars lawsuits from those not even part of the class action lawsuits: it effectively gives a grant of perpetual immunity for smoking-related damages to the tobacco companies.
and
The Deal would halt future lawsuits from smokers, even those who have not yet engaged in any class action suit (even those who have not yet started smoking, even those not yet born, as experts understand the language of the Deal).
"Smokers who are ill could no longer sue tobacco companies seeking punitive damages for past industry misconduct, but they COULD SUE TO RECOVER ACTUAL DAMAGES SUCH AS MEDICAL BILLS. SMOKERS STILL COULD SUE FOR AND COLLECT BOTH ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR ANY FUTURE INDUSTRY WRONGDOING."
Relax. No need to be indignant.
I'll be indignant if I wish.
Of course.
Your intent clearly is to troll this group with government-friendly shilling.
I suppose it could be just as accurately said that you troll the group with government-unfriendly shilling. Some have an unfortunate habit of rising to the bait.
And like Sternlight, you mask your ignorance on many issues with pomposity.
Possibly. Obviously not doing a very good job. Clearly, my ignorance is boundless, and what I know is very tiny indeed. However, I observe that you are very familiar with pomposity, and should therefore be a good judge.
Like Detweiler and Vulis, your intent is to disrupt the group.
I don't know about Detweiler. In my short tenure on this list Vulis has given no evidence that his intent is to "disrupt the group" -- he just seems to express his sometimes extreme opinions. Like you. In any case, it is not true that my intent is to "disrupt the group", and it is hard to see how my few, offhand posts on the topic of the tobacco agreement could be seen as anything remotely approaching a deliberate campaign. I think you are attributing me far more potency than is warranted. KC