[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Terry: Just agree that the hype of this cure of the day for cancer, is not a
>"cruel hoax". It is nothing really new, it is untested in humans, it is
>years away from benefiting those who presently have cancer, but it can not
>be defined as a cruel hoax (something intended to deceive or defraud).
It's a semantical difference, Ron. It is not the same as the "Saranga Ray."
John Kennedy saw a Joe Pyne show where Saranga was complaining that his
breakthrough technology was stolen by the Air Force. Now when the Commander
gets a poison pen letter from the President of the United States wanting to
know why we (it was long before my time but my partner was the engineer who
got to deal with it) were stealing some poor guy's invention that could see
incoming enemy missiles through all obstructions, well I will tell you...
:-} Damn I wished I hadn't missed that.
Bob probably was more cautious in his reply to that than I am wont to be. I
never got beyond telling would-be contractors that they were bullshitting
us. Fortunately for the Air Force they had lawyers to clean up and
obfuscate my language.
I am fully willing to admit I never was able to distinguish the used car
salesman's "puffing" and plain old lying.
>Your choice of terms was erroneous, but certainly did not warrant the
>personal vilification you received. Ron
Not to worry. My wife villifies MO all the time. <vbg>
I think we are a very long way from an overall cure. It takes some
sophisticated reading to understand that there is no grand breakthrough IMO.
Anyone can apply their own definitions. I explained my objections to the
press reports as best I was able. Can we say some people didn't get past my
headline?
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
