Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...

[Pieyed Piper]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:33:08 -0600, m II <c@in.the.hat> wrote:

George Jefferson wrote:

Now, when we compare this with the 9/11 theory there is much more reason
to believe it. With 9/11 it is all just suspicion but here was have
proof of something(incompetence or conspiracy). Of course I here nothing
about a conspiracy anywhere. I guess conspiracies can only happen under
a conservative/republican government?


The reason that there was absolutely no damage to the Pentagon walls
cause by two massive wings, the engines and a tail section is obvious.

Aliens from Outer Space were observing the event and one microsecond
before impact, INSTANTANEOUSLY converted said appendages into
overcooked PASTA.

That allowed the fuselage to SUCK the wings, engines and tail
surfaces, now far from being Al Dente, into the building.

Hungry emergency workers, said to be mainly of illegal immigrant
status, simply saw an opportunity for a free meal and ATE the
evidence. This clearly explains the miraculous lack of debris.

Many of them have since had to assume false identities in order to
avoid the media and extrajudicial silencing by Federal Agencies.

We've found a few of the dumber ones. They didn't hide in too clever
of a fashion.

Archimedes' lever
Perenis
life imitates life
TheQuickBrownFox
DrParnassus






mike

You're an idiot, and if you think that no plane hit the Pentagon, you
should go find Rosie O' Retard and plant your head back up her ass.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Greegor wrote:

Prove you're a GENIUS, Archie. Say something smart! LOL

If he was really smart, he'd never open his mouth.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Greegor]

Prove you're a GENIUS, Archie. Say something smart! LOL

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:53:58 -0700, DrParnassus
<DrParnassus@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:13:35 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:57:08 -0700, DrParnassus
DrParnassus@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:53:29 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

So you admit that I'm right (you can't refute) but want me to look up the
obvious? Gotcha.

Squirm bitch. Regardless of whether you are ever right or wrong, you
squirm like a little bitch.

I've told you a hundred times, AlwaysWrong, you're *not* my type. Now take
*NO* for an answer and go back to mommy, where you belong.


Squirm, bitch, squirm! Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahaa!

One more time: I'm *NOT* YOUR TYPE, DimBulb. Maybe if you ask nicely mommy
will come back.

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.

BTW learn to solder and build some kits.

 

[JosephKK]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:04:05 -0600, m II <c@in.the.hat> wrote:

m II wrote:

The reason that there was absolutely no damage to the Pentagon walls
cause by two massive wings, the engines and a tail section is obvious.

Aliens from Outer Space were observing the event and one microsecond
before impact, INSTANTANEOUSLY converted said appendages into
overcooked PASTA.

That allowed the fuselage to SUCK the wings, engines and tail
surfaces, now far from being Al Dente, into the building.

Hungry emergency workers, said to be mainly of illegal immigrant
status, simply saw an opportunity for a free meal and ATE the
evidence. This clearly explains the miraculous lack of debris.

Many of them have since had to assume false identities in order to
avoid the media and extrajudicial silencing by Federal Agencies.

We've found a few of the dumber ones. They didn't hide in too clever
of a fashion.

Archimedes' lever
Perenis
life imitates life
TheQuickBrownFox
DrParnassus
Pieyed Piper

Since you don't seem to know, those are all nyms of one poser polluting
sed and other groups.

 

On Jun 25, 3:43 am, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, JosephKK wrote:
krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

Clean-up costs are unlimited, other damages are limited to $75M.

33 USC §2704:

        (a) General rule

            Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the
        liability of a responsible party under section 2702 of this title and
        any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible
        party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed--
        ...

        (3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total of all
        removal costs plus $75,000,000; and
        ...

However, §2704 (c) provides several exceptions to the cap, including
gross negligence, violation of applicable regulations, failure to provide
"reasonable cooperation", yadda, yadda. Plenty in there to keep the
lawyers busy for the next couple of decades.

Yes, that's how I read it too. Laws are written by lawyers,
creating...green jobs!!


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Jun 26, 1:08 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"



k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar.  The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be.  ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages.  The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages.  Read it.

Joseph, the statute's limit reads "removal + $75M" , so I think
Keith's nailed it pretty well. From listening to Obama's shakedown
czar, it sounds like he's going to pay everyone under the sun, for
indirect or even imaginary losses, so those could easily dwarf other
costs.

By the $100M part of the shakedown (for oil workers idled by Obama) BP
has already been extorted into paying more than they'd normally be
liable for, and to pay for something that wasn't even their fault.

The federal government, by its inept action, has greatly increased the
environmental damages, which BP will also be required to pay. For
example, various stupid regulations and procedures prevented
intercepting the oil at sea, blocked extensive & very capable foreign
skimming assistance, idled Jindal's vacuum boats, prevented his berms,
etc.

Under law, an injured party has a responsibility of "mitigating
damages." If someone slashes your tire, for example, they owe you a
tire. If you drive and drive and drive and wreck the rims, they do
not owe you a set of rims.

Obama's failed miserably there--he's impeded efforts and artificially,
unnecessarily, greatly increased the environmental damages.

BP should have a cause of action there, though of course they'll never
use it--you don't dare attack the sovereign.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.

Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.

BTW learn to solder and build some kits.

Jealous? Thought so.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.

Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.

BTW learn to solder and build some kits.

Jealous? Thought so.

How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.

Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.

BTW learn to solder and build some kits.

Jealous? Thought so.

How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?

Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.

Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.

BTW learn to solder and build some kits.

Jealous? Thought so.

How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?

Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.

Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:36:42 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.

Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.

BTW learn to solder and build some kits.

Jealous? Thought so.

How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?

Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.

Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.

Don't feed "krw". He went over the edge long ago.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Obama: A reincarnation of Nixon, narcissistically posing in
politically-correct black-face, but with fewer scruples.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:36:42 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.

Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.

BTW learn to solder and build some kits.

Jealous? Thought so.

How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?

Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.

Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.

You're the one who started with the crap, asshole. I see you wish to continue
it, like your friend AlwaysWrong.

 

[Przemek Klosowski]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:54:17 -0700, linnix wrote:

That's probably both oil and gas. So, 25% or around 40,000 barrels of
oil per day. It will run out in around 130 years.

The field size estimate I have seen was 50 million barrels (up to 100 mil)
At 40000 bbl/day it should empty out in about 4 years.

 

[Pieyed Piper]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:13:22 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

You're the one who started with the crap, asshole. I see you wish to continue
it, like your friend AlwaysWrong.

Your mental deficiency is starting to show, Williams. If you are too
blatant about it, I may not even have to spell it out for you.

 

[Greegor]

Archimedes!

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:42:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:36:42 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.

Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.

BTW learn to solder and build some kits.

Jealous? Thought so.

How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?

Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.

Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.

Don't feed "krw". He went over the edge long ago.

Because I made a comment about you implying that Larkin's wife was a whore?
<shrug>

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 05:49:12 -0700, Pieyed Piper
<pieyedPiper@thebongshopattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:13:22 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

You're the one who started with the crap, asshole. I see you wish to continue
it, like your friend AlwaysWrong.

Your mental deficiency is starting to show, Williams. If you are too
blatant about it, I may not even have to spell it out for you.

Aw, aren't AlwaysWrong's friends cute. You are drawing quite a circle for
your jerk, AlwaysWrong.

 

[m II]

JosephKK wrote:

Archimedes' lever
Perenis
life imitates life
TheQuickBrownFox
DrParnassus
Pieyed Piper

Since you don't seem to know, those are all nyms of one poser polluting
sed and other groups.

Ha. It's a physical impossibility for one package to contain all that
density, so, it has to be spread out:

Archimedes' lever
Perenis
life imitates life
TheQuickBrownFox
DrParnassus
MasiveProng
UltimatePatriot
FatBytestard
BlindBaby
Copacetic
Mr.Eko
WarmUnderbelly
TheKraken

I also realize that it's very incomplete list, but I have time to
build it up.



mike