Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (93866)	1/4/2002 1:13:12 PM
From: Logain Ablar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike: This is not political just basic fact that you have to keep in mind the trail attorneys are the #1 $$ contributor to the Decocratic party. As long as Democrats control the Senate (or Congress) there will not be meaningful tort reform. Even in the defense bill just passed there was limited liability for some HM mine (some neutron? research or such) in SD, Dashel made sure the gov't would be on the environmental hook so the attorneys could still claim their due. So if the Republican's can claim a majority next year then its time to load up on insurers and HAL. Tim

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (93866)	1/4/2002 1:43:02 PM
From: valueminded	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike: Thanks for your feedback. The logic is impeccable, but as we know these things do not follow logic. I think the issue becomes one of whether the asbestos folks gravitate to the company with the largest pockets....No matter if they can establish damages, culpability etc.. All the reasoning aside, this is either a zero or a big hit & the only way to get an appropriate risk reward scenario in these cases is to go the option route. (imo)

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (93866)	1/4/2002 8:39:33 PM
From: Bill Cotter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Hi Mike; I am confused about the asbestos liability with HAL. Asbestos was a product in common use in the '40's and '50's mostly to insulate heating ducts/pipes and around furnaces. Nobody knew at the time that it was carcinogenic. How do we know that plastics do not cause cancer. I know that vinyl plastic is everywhere, containers for drinks, shower curtains, window shades, etc. It seems far from inert to me. I get a headache almost instantly when exposed to new vinyl. I guess the point I am trying to make is, how can they sue HAL unless the company knowingly used asbestos after the government found that it caused cancer. It seems that a product in common use should be immune from lawsuits after a period of time, similar to a statute of limitations. Didn't National Gypsum suffer a similar fate?