Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 12:45:15PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
[...]
> 
> Well, what more is there to say? You obviously have not bothered to follow
> this issue, or you would surely know that a key provision of the deal, and
> probably one of the main things that made it somewhat attractive to the
> tobacco companies is that it put an end to future lawsuits.

No, it does not.  It puts an end to certain *kinds* of lawsuits, most
notably, class action suits, and it limits punitive damages.  But it
is not a blanket end lawsuits, as you seem to believe. 

> (How could it be otherwise, as a deal? 

I don't know, Tim.  It's just that it *is* otherwise, as a deal.

[...]

> Now is it clearer to you what we've been discussing? Jeesh.

Somewhat.  Presumably it is for you, as well.

[...]

> I just plain give up on you, Kent. You obviously have not been reading or
> following the news. The "deal" requires Congressional action...there have
> been scads of stories on this precise point, and Clinton is already making
> noises about not signing the legislation unless details are changed.

You are right, I was wrong, the deal does require congressional
action.  You are also right that I haven't been spending a lot of time
following this story.  However, it is obvious, given your obvious lack
of understanding of the details about which suits were blocked and
which were not, that you weren't paying close attention either. 

Relax.  No need to be indignant.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html