Jb** Stop pretending you are something you are not (unless you are pretending to be an idiot).**
Correct. Fuck off. Do not read adult threads. Keep to balls, circumcision, anal sex and such.
Stop lying! I am seriously considering taking back every good thing I said about you, for acting like an ignorant pustule
Be my guest. Everyone can say anything on these Boards. If I were in your shoes, I’d consider an alternative: try to learn the rules of civilized discussions and behavior.
Crack, in order to cut on words, assume that I start every paragraph with: “IMBO,…” and then deleted it. I mean it… Anyway…Both parties were injured by allegedly defective products.
This is a wrong premise. Superficially, it appears that way. In “Pinto” case, the possible faults were: 1. Manufacturer; 2. Driver(s); 3.Roadway; 4.Last mechanic/garage the car was in; 5.Etc.
A quick, relatively simple analysis showed that in all cases only the manufacturer was “the common denominator”; other ingredients were different. The stuctural/mechanical analysis of the design of Pinto confirmed the suspicion: in that ‘cheap’ car, the tank/turn signal was inappropriately placed/designed.
In “cellphone” case we have victims with brain tumors who talked on cellphones some time before the tumor developed. Regardless of cause (if any; no “cause”, unfortunately, is now known for the majority of tumors; in one of the best known cases, presence of breast cancer in relatives increases the risk of cancer in victim; still some women from such families do not develop breast cancer, i.e., there are some other “causes” we do not know about), all tumors have long latent period, usually more than several years. To prove the causality, one has to show that brain tumor arise in cellphone users with higher rate that in general population, with certain predictability, not caused by e.g., TV watching or other factor (sounds complicated but it is routinely done by epidemiologists by “subtracting” risks). All these, indeed, are unnecessary, because the main premise is unproved: there is no observable increase in brain tumor frequency, worldwide, since the inception of cellphones. Period. Nothing to study further. A bogus phenomenon.
Incidentally, you can skip the question: “Do microwaves cause human brain tumors?” altogether. Granted, large doses, higher frequencies, etc., cannot be a priori excluded. But as used in cellphones, they do not. (I vaguely remember of reading something about harmful effects of microwaves. I do not remember anything about any cancerogenicity).
I believe that the plaintiff in the cell phone case has the right to attempt to prove that the defendant’s cell phone caused his tumor
I am not a constitutional lawyer 
. So, I cannot say what rights we have; to me, granting to the plaintiff this right would be the same, as granting him the right to sue his grocer, because the plaintiff ate broccoli from that grocery for 30 years.
Simirarly, I do not see why the plaintiff should be allowed to search any defendant’s records any more than he is allowed to search any grocer’s records.
As you recall, the “Pinto” case started with the observation that there were an increased number of fatal accidents involving that car (?). No such observation exists in the cellphone case, or at least, any perceived observation was not confirmed: there have been no increase in overall frequency of brain tumors (i.e., from ANY cause; see about the ‘cause’ above).
As for the actual medical probability of cell phones causing brain tumors, I have no opinion and am not qualified to make such determination.
This is a very correct and mature statement. What I do not understand: how you (an attorney) can sue anybody if there is no cause/effect relationship? The remainder of that paragraph raises legitimate concerns. It is true: most of the epidemiologists involved are graguates of the West Nokia 3com Reserve University. But, jokes aside, give the defendant the right to investigate this creepy plaintiff: wasn’t he experimenting with microwave ovens and murine brain tumors for the past 20 years in his garage? Where he got his tumor in the first place? They are quite rare. Is there a conspiracy to bankrupt Nokia?
There are very interesting issues in the second portion of your post. I would like to address them, but I feel that I have to post the above now, while the actuality of it is here. I will return to the remainder of your post later.
REPRISE: Sorry, I didn’t intentionally ignore this question. I’m Australian and my first language is Australian English. I speak French pretty badly and have a fairly limited grasp of sign language too.
Just to dilute a bit the seriuosness of this thead (even Jb jumped in) with my usual baloney: considering the utmost importance of SL on the Net, can you present your credentials? Where did you pick up your SL?
Peace
