I think you're a very poor representative of a corporate lawyer. For
one thing, you're way too thin skinned. Sounds to me like you're
now trying to defend yourself, because deep down you think you've
done something that needs defending. Poor you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:38:23 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

More war heros. Wonderful. Lawyers are just wonderful
people, especially corporate lawyers.

Jonathan, have you ever met a corporate lawyer? Do you have the foggiest
idea what they do? Obviously not.

The folks who try cases are litigators, not corporate lawyers. And yes, a
lot of litigators are sleazy, particularly in the PI area, where I've
overhead some (not related in any way to me) coaching plaintiffs
essentially
to lie. Those are the kind I was talking about when I said in another
thread
that it's the 99% that give the other 1% of us a bad name.

In the case under discussion, I don't have a problem with the proposition
that if the guvmint asks for a specific chemical formulation and a
manufacturer supplies precisely that formulation, the financial burden
should be borne by the guvmint and ultimately the taxpayers, and not by
the
manufacturer. Unless you're a rabid Robin Hood, that proposition seems
like
simple fairness. More importantly, whether or not you agree with the
proposition it's just plain dumb to suggest that the manufacturer
shouldn't
have the chance to present the question to the court.

But of course I'm sure that in your universe lawyers are the kind of
automatic villains like Nazis, South Africans and drug manufacturers that
Hollywood hauls out when it needs in immediately recognizable bad guy.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27