 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz
|
| | | Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) think (...) For things done while they were in power, sure. Although I'm not sure how statute of limitations should play in, though the only things which should have a statute of limitations are things for (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) Ack! I don't like that. I'm a strong supporter of the idea of personal liability, but that ranks as an accident, if I understand you. We believe (don't we?) that the herb, rosemary is safe, so we dispose of it willy nilly. Twenty years from (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) Why should they be responsible if there were no way company X could reasonably have known chemical X was lethal? That's just random killing.[1] Jasper [1] Of careers, and possibly the people affected as well, as a direct consequence. (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) Perhaps they shouldn't have dumped stuff, which they didn't know what its effects might be, in an unsecured area. Think about how we handle radioactive waste. Some of it, we don't really know what effect it will have, so be bundle it up to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | (...) Oh come now. You're acting like it never happens that a previously-thought-unharmful stuff is later considered extremely harmful. cf Asbestos. Greatest thing since sliced bread, right up until the fourties when the studies came out. I really (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I agree with you. I don't think that's the argument, though. I would expect that a defense of "we truly believed this was a good insulator, our research aligned with everyone elses" ought to carry some weight. Not get the company off scot (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
