Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 2:14 PM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
>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.

You're a fool and a knave. You claim I said "all" lawsuits, when it was
clear from my posts, the posts of Peter Swire, and others, that the Deal
involved an end (if upheld) to various kinds of lawsuits, raising serious
constitutional issues.

The "all" is your addition to my words. I don't recall ever making any
statement that "all lawsuits" are blocked, settled, etc. Presumably R.J.
Reynolds could still be sued for having slippery floors in their corporate
buildings...I don't know. 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. _This_ is the main issue being discussed, along with other parts
of the Deal, such as the touted banishment of the Marlboro Man, Joe Camel,
and similar images from all advertising and sponsorship of sporting events.

And to show your knavishness, the point you made was this:

"I don't think it is correct that the deal halts future lawsuits from
other parties, only from the signers of the deal."

This is patently wrong, as the various lawsuits being filed, or planned to
be filed, show. 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). These are certainly constitutional
issues, not mere agreements between parties to a deal, as you allege.


>> (How could it be otherwise, as a deal?
>
>I don't know, Tim.  It's just that it *is* otherwise, as a deal.

You're disingenuous, as usual. I've come to expect nothing different from you.

The Deal raises substantive issues in many areas, as nearly all news
reports are showing. Critics are emerging from all corners, ranging from
Ralph Nader to the ACLU. Clinton has said he will veto the Congressional
legislation if it enacts the language currently in the Deal. Lawsuits have
already been filed.

>Relax.  No need to be indignant.
>

I'll be indignant if I wish. Your intent clearly is to troll this group
with government-friendly shilling. And like Sternlight, you mask your
ignorance on many issues with pomposity. Like Detweiler and Vulis, your
intent is to disrupt the group.

Taking you out of my Eudora filter file--as I periodically do with almost
everyone in that file--was a mistake. Back in you go.

--Tim May



There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."