Re: The McDonald's incident

[John Barrer <forcejb@YAHOO.COM>]

   Replying to several comments: I take the "another
lefty out there" comment as a compliment. Thank you.
Hugh is right - R is for responsibility (I thought it
was obvious). And Jack U. is right on the money
(IMHO). Why oh why have so many folks embraced the
right-wing anti-gov, pro-corp, states rights
positions? Maybe it's the same kind of "thinking" that
led 98 senators to vote for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution
back in '64?
   Since we're well off the P track, how do recent
posters feel about the Microsoft case? Pre-Reagen,
tie-in sales (where you must buy product A in order to
get product B) were a CLEAR no-no. An example. Linde
Gases developed an outstanding process ("AOD") for
reducing carbon in stainless steels which used argon
and oxygen. AOD was by far the best and cheapest
process. But the AOD process license had to be
COMPLETELY separate from the sale of oxygen and argon.
This climate made Linde compete harder for both the
gases income and the license income. A clear win for
the customer! IMHO the exact opposite has been the
case in the history of software development and
marketing by MS.
--- Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV> wrote:
>         I enjoy the months that I spend today
> without having any
> interaction with lawyers.   The only ones that I've
> worked with whom I
> really liked and respected were the ones in the
> Public Defender's office.
>         Writers, ever since Plautus (~150 b.c.) have
> made fun of the legal
> profession (Shakespeare's "Let's kill all.." is
> actually a tribute to
> lawyers).  So Rick's biases are certainly not
> uncommon.  And far be it
> from me to try to argue anybody out of his/her pet
> prejudices.  A good
> prejudice, after all, can be as comforting in time
> of stress as a whole
> evening with one's favorite bartender.
>         Also, a good, unfounded, prejudice is a lot
> less trouble than a
> well-taught course in civics.
>         Having said this, I comment on Rick's
> posting as follows:
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Rick Tarara wrote:
>
> > All I have to do is listen to the stories my wife
> brings home from her job
> > as Elementary School Principal.  Parents are
> constantly threatening to sue
> > over this or that, students use the 'S' word
> frequently.  Do even 1% of
> > these incidents actually become litigation--NO.
> Does this atmosphere in
> > which people 'think' they can sue on any small
> pretense effect the efficient
> > and productive operation of the school system (or
> almost any other
> > institution/business in this country)--I'm damned
> sure it does, and not for
> > the better!
>
>         Not for the better?  Compared with the '20's
> and '30's you have
> safer foods, safer cars, the end of racially
> segregated schools, black
> Americans voting in the Southern states, and
> increasing numbers of women
> in the medical and legal professions.  This is just
> the beginning of the
> list.  So (1) I don't know what you mean by
> "better"; (2) I note that
> nothing in the preceding excerpt mentions lawyers.
>
> >  Sorry Jack, but I have little patience with the
> law profession
> > or the practice of law in this country as it has
> been displayed to the
> > public over the past several years.  Truth and
> Justice seem to play
> > virtually no role (my perception), at least in the
> high-profile cases to
> > which we have ample information.
>
>         I do not see any logical connection between
> this excerpt and the
> one before it.  Brown v Board of Education, Roe v
> Doe, and Loving v
> Virginia are the first three such cases that quickly
> come to mind.  In the
> views of some of us, at least, these cases were very
> much focussed on the
> issues of "Truth and Justice".
>         Yes, Marcia Clark did a lousy job of
> prosecuting O.J. Simpson.
> The jury (none of whom were lawyers) let her know
> that she did a lousy
> job.
>         Truly frivolous cases are usually quickly
> dismissed, and frivolous
> plaintiffs often find themselves socked with paying
> the defendants'
> attorneyss' fees.
>
> >  (I was quickly dismissed from jury duty
> > when I expressed my views on 'personal
> responsibility' during the seating
> > for a civil case.)
>
>         Thereby giving us cause for confidence in
> the workings of the
> legal system.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>    Jack


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/