 | | Re: The big lie —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) I deny none of the above except the unstated implication that this is the only possible outcome. Remember, these actions are by heavily regulated firms that, as it turns out, managed to (quite easily) wriggle off the hook for liability. To (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The big lie —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) The regulations are largely irrelevant. Generally they set a minimum standard, not a maximum one. It is my understanding that UA and AA are open to litigation for their "failure" on the 11th - is that not the case? (...) I'm not clear on what (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The big lie —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) That's the theory, but in practice it has turned out that regulations are HIGHLY relevant... they are a min-max. In other industries the defense that "we were in conformance with standards" has been an accepted defense. This has been discussed (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
