From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 14:53:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"
In-Reply-To: <199707102236.SAA07074@mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: <199707120646.IAA02109@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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).

>From http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/20/tobacco.pm.2/index.html

    "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