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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (69519)	12/13/2010 3:48:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 218621

No US experimentation ? I didn't say that. What I was pointing out is what you also state.. Every gov't is complicit in human experimentation in one form or another, including Bejing. TJ tried to assert that there would be riots in China were it discovered Bejing was engaged in human experimentation. I merely pointed out the long history of that communist gov't involvement in such activities. Hawk

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (69519)	12/13/2010 3:58:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218621

TBS, permit me to rant a bit here.. Just got off the phone with our lawyers.. My father died of Mesothelioma last year. As most know from all the TV ads, Meso is only caused by exposure to Asbestos. Now.. it appears that some judge in California has ruled that original equipment manufacturers, who's equipment originally came with parts (packings, linings, gaskets.. etc) containing asbestos, are not held liable when replacement parts containing asbestos are utilized. For example, let's say there's a pump manufacturer and their pump used asbestos laden packings. If those packings are replaced, they claim that their liability no longer exists because their pump is not what caused release of asbestos (resulting in Mesothelioma). So they're now off the hook. Of course, there's the argument that they designed that pump to utilize asbestos packings and that was the specification. They did not provide any subsequent specification guidance that would permit a non-asbestos packing to be utilized. So.. any lawyers out there who can argue that the pump manufacturer isn't still liable for that asbestos exposure, given that they never altered their spec sheets to utilize non-asbestos parts? This is another case that is coming before the Cali Supreme Court. O Neil v. Crane Co. gmsr.com Just madness!! And that's my rant for the day.. Hawk