Wound a little tight, are we? Remember in high school how they told you to
break your writings into paragraphs to improve readability? Oh, and in law
school when they told you about sticking to the facts? I made no accusations.
I simply said it was likely. And I continue to believe that.

Your response is like us standing together in the rain and you asking me to
PROVE that it is raining. As I said, ROFL.

But -- please post again. Tell us how all the PI lawyers are really members of
the Mother Teresa Society and are unwittingly getting rich out of selfless love
for humanity. Challenge me to prove that it is not so. This is getting to be
hilarious.

On 8/31/2005 9:36 PM, wrote the following:
Yes, I am a lawyer. As such, I am attuned to looking for logical proof
of an assertion. You have provided none. Being a manager and business
owner for "many" years qualifies for nothing other than something to do
with the specific area of your business. Your professed knowledge of
"these things", whatever "they" are, is so vague and general as to
render your opinion even more suspect. Moreover, your logic, if it can
be so charitibly characterised, is utterly backwards. If there were a
motive to insulate themselves from responsibility (i.e., liability) for
a defective product they would have been independently owned and not
have the nexus to the other company. The issue, however, is not that,
anyway; what and where are there ANY, ANY facts to support your rather
tired accusation that the actions were a reaction to so-called
bloodsuckers (and unsupported) allegations of overeaching by the
American justice system? If you truly knew anything about business,
you would know that these type of dual company setups are done
routinely for, primarily, tax and financial reasons way beyond the
scope of this newsgroup's interest area (which I entirely understand
and agree with), and too numerous to discuss, especially with people
who are more interested in generalities than cogency.