Public Safety Lawsuits Harming Public Safety?

by Jimmy Akin

in Economics

Have seen those ads on TV–or gotten them in the mail–asking if you were harmed by some product or procedure because there are a bunch of lawyers somewhere preparing a class action suit to go after the makers of the product or the providers of the procedure?

They’re all over the place these days, reflecting the amazing litigiousness of contemporary American society.

Have you heard news stories about fantastically large awards being given to people as a result of such lawsuits?

Those are all over the place, too.

What’s the cumulative effect of such lawsuits?

No doubt, it makes manufacturers and service providers more careful in what they present to the market, knowing that they could get sued if someone gets hurt.

Good.

That needs to happen.

But might the cumulative effect of such lawsuits result in companies becoming too risk averse? If that were to happen then the public would be denied products and procedures that would make life better and that could even save lives.

John Stossel argues that this is what’s happening:

Union Carbide has invented a small portable kidney dialysis machine. It would make life much easier for people with kidney disease, but Union Carbide won’t sell it. With legal sharks circling, the risk of expensive lawsuits outweighs the possible profit.

Are you pregnant and nauseous? Bendectin would probably cure your morning sickness. For 27 years doctors prescribed the drug to 33 million women because it was so good at stopping nausea and vomiting. But you can’t buy Bendectin today because lawyers kept suing the manufacturer, Merrell Dow, claiming the drug caused birth defects.

Studies did not show that Bendectin caused birth defects, and Merrell Dow won most of the lawsuits. But after spending $100 million in legal fees and awards, the company gave up selling the drug. Bendectin has never been effectively replaced, and morning sickness is now a major contributor to dehydration during pregnancy.

Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, says, "Within two years of discontinuing Bendectin, the incidence of hospitalization for dehydration during early pregnancy doubled; the incidence of birth defects was unchanged."

Those are just some of the life-enhancing products we know we must do without because America’s peculiar legal system makes it profitable for trial lawyers to pursue extortion — like litigation. What wonderful products will we never even hear about because the lawyers have created a climate of fear?

On the other hand:

Fear of being sued reduced the number of American companies researching contraceptives from 13 to two.

Whatever one ultimately concludes, it’s worthwhile to

GET THE STORY.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 43 comments }

David B. August 10, 2006 at 12:16 pm

Vote for John Edwards in 2008! He’ll save us from evil trial lawyers! How? By giving them all the jobs in Washington! :-)

Some Day August 10, 2006 at 12:20 pm

This country really has that as a defect. I know of no other place where you get sued for stupidities.
The only advantage is that it is it’s own weakness.

Kate August 10, 2006 at 1:06 pm

I just recently discovered that there is even a word for this sort of lawsuit-as-extortion: barratry.

thomas tucker August 10, 2006 at 1:48 pm

I think one of the worst offenses in our legal system is the idea that a corporation can be sued by the NON-employment related acts of its emplyoees. We see this in dioceses being sued for the evil actions of a few of their priests even if the bishop or diocese knew nothing about it! If one of my employees rapes someone in a back room at the office and had a clear record when hired, why am I responsible?

Anonymous August 10, 2006 at 2:12 pm

Here’s another frivolous lawsuit against a Catholic hospital. The person suing says she was discriminated against because she belongs to the church of body piercing.
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=507143&category=REGIONOTHER&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=8/10/2006

Justin West August 10, 2006 at 2:32 pm

Not to plug myself, but I work for a company working to get rid of frivolous lawsuits by making sure that the average American has access to qualified attorneys. Hopefully frivolous malpractice lawsuits and lawsuits against teachers merely doing their job will stop, when it becomes clear that they have the ability to fight back without spending an arm and a leg. I won’t plug my company here, but if you’d like info, click my name to visit my site.

BillyHW August 10, 2006 at 2:35 pm

I miss my konjac jelly mini-cups.

Mike Koenecke August 10, 2006 at 2:48 pm

Funny thing is, a current topic on a lawyers’ list I belong to is “The Myth of the Frivolous Lawsuit.” It is a list for solos and small firm lawyers, and the consensus is pretty much that plaintiffs’ lawyers are all crusaders for truth, justice, and the American way. As an estate planning/probate/business lawyer, I think Stossel makes a good point.

John August 10, 2006 at 2:59 pm

Way to go Jimmy!!! I’ve been hoping you’d start a rant about the injustices of attorneys taking down the major corporations in our country, and generally ruining the American way of life. Nevermind the good Catholic clients that hire the attorney’s to do their bidding, and in the procees make slightly more than a few bucks for ye old early retirement fund. How about Dalkon Shield, Vioxx, Phen-Phen, Thalidimide…for every single products liability case you can name, I can name five that have saved lives and taken money out of the pockets of the fat-cat corps that care much more about making a buck than saving yours and my life. Your examples re birth control litigation make my point for me.
How about the attorneys that sue on behalf of innocent persons reasonably injured by drunks, and druggies and the like…how about the attorneys who prosecute the real bad criminal types in our society…how about those attorneys who defend the innocent (from the womb to death-row)…how about the attorneys who defend the Vatican and other Catholic interests against the victims of massive, pervasive clergy abuse (oh…wait…perhaps we don’t want to include that one), how about the attorneys who help you buy a house, or a car, or insurance, or investments, or keep you from being ripped of when your return on your purchase or investment comes up empty, how about the attorneys who protect your grandmother and grandfather when predatory lenders and defrauders and vendors suck the life out of their retirement means, and your busy blogging away about some important topic like giant stinking plants…and on…and on…and on…
I know you’re going to respond with “this was simply an attack on excessive litigousness, and personal injury/products liability suits”…yah right!…look at the comment you’ve generated thus far and tell me I’m wrong…shame shame Jimmy…
As you may have guessed, I am an attorney…in my practice I do a lot of protective order work with real poor clients…meaning, while many of you are out there blogging away, contemplating the meaning of the Magesterium, and planning our Pope’s next birthday e-card…myself and a lot of good Catholic professionals like me, are taking women and children into our offices with cuts and bruises and broken homes and broken bones, and trying to help them put their lives back together…I know I don’t have the monopoly on tough jobs for little pay, but, sheesh…back off the bad lawyer thing…or at least know a few…
Oh…and I’m just saying…if you’d like to get into a conversation about uncomfortable little red haired guys, with thick red beards to cover their pudgy little faces…leave me out…I love your stuff brother ;)
Peace,
John

SDG August 10, 2006 at 2:59 pm

I think one of the worst offenses in our legal system is the idea that a corporation can be sued by the NON-employment related acts of its emplyoees. We see this in dioceses being sued for the evil actions of a few of their priests even if the bishop or diocese knew nothing about it! If one of my employees rapes someone in a back room at the office and had a clear record when hired, why am I responsible?

Well, maybe you are and maybe you aren’t. If you have a large building with relatively isolated areas, you might have to take some precautions to ensure the safety of your employees, and if you didn’t you might be liable.
In the case of bishops, I don’t know about legal responsibility, but certainly morally I wouldn’t say that just because a bishop may not have specific knowledge about his priests’ activities, it follows that he has exercised due diligence as the pastor of his diocese to oversee his priests and protect his people. What exactly constitutes actual neglect of duty, and when or whether he could or should be sued, I don’t pretend to know.
I, too, think the article makes some good points… I’d be interested in hearing a rebuttal, but it seems persuasive on the face of it.

SDG August 10, 2006 at 3:17 pm

look at the comment you’ve generated thus far and tell me I’m wrong

I’ve read the comments thus far, and you’re wrong. Also confusing and given to unnecessary vitriol. Are you really a lawyer? I would expect more disciplined persuasive writing from your profession, but perhaps I’m naive.

JohnH August 10, 2006 at 3:29 pm

My wife’s OB told her how to make “boot-leg Bendectin.” It’s a sleep aid and B6. It’s really helped her morning sickness.
And John – it’s all of the frivolous lawsuits that are the problem, and the unethical lawers who take them on. Going off on people for being fed up with it isn’t going to change the situation, or make lawyers look good.

Ryan S August 10, 2006 at 3:31 pm

After John’s rant above, is it any wonder that lawyers have an image problem?
After the gross distortions of Jimmy’s post and the blatant attacks on Jimmy himself, he could easily declare that a RULE #1 violation if he wanted.
Speaking of rules… I can’t think of any non-lawyer bloggers who show more respect to the concept of law than Jimmy given the canon, liturgical, civil, and moral law questions he covers.

Anonthistime August 10, 2006 at 3:43 pm

As someone who went to the polls on purpose for an off-year election on purpose to vote against medical lawsuit caps, I have to disagree with Jimmy on this one.
It’s so easy to blame the “greedy trial lawyers” for everything from rising insurance costs to lack of innovation from huge multinational corporations who would just LOVE to invent and market the next great lifesaving drug/process/procedure, if only those darned trial lawyers would back off. But when it comes to trust, I’ll take my chances with the greedy lawyers who hope to split a jury award with me rather than with the huge drug company that routinely minimizes risks of side effects of their products, including deaths (seventeen deaths during Guardasil trials, but of course none of them were related to the drug). After all, the lawyers have a vested interest in keeping me alive–at least long enough for me to pay them!

John August 10, 2006 at 4:29 pm

Rule#1 violation?
I assume that’s blogosphere speak for censoring a dissenting opinion, or excluding the same from access to the rest of the pack for nonconformity?
For the record, my comment re Jimmy was in fun, and as much a light hearted punch at Jimmy as it was at myself…I look just like the guy… (although my hair’s not quite as red). My cheeks, under my red beard, are also pudgy, probably pudgier…
I do take exception to the generation of conversation though, that invariably WILL lead to aggressive attacks against lawyers…
I’m curious…for all of you who attack my post, did you miss the first post to this article? Take another look…I spend my day serving God, my poor clients, and my family…I check out Jimmy’s blog (which again I generally really dig)…and there goes a guy I respect poping-off at my profession…
I’ve read Jimmy’s blog for a while, and its obvious the guy is sharp, and forward thinking…and he shouldn’t get off the hook for a jab at a good, honorable profession. If you think I’m too vitriolic, aggressive, image-non-concerned, I’m sorry to hear that…but expose yourself a little bit in your next post…let someone comment negatively about the reasonable choices you’ve made in your life, and see if you don’t respond…
Regards,
John

John E August 10, 2006 at 4:30 pm

If John’s rant above is indicative of even a portion of attorneys, then I am not the least surprised at the number of frivolous lawsuits that are filed. Anger, prejudice, and self-congratulations clouds these few from actually investigating the merits of a case. The rant doesn’t even address the topic, although it almost comes to its senses and realizes it: “I know you’re going to respond with…”. Surprising from someone I’d expect should be able to use reason. Or perhaps this just bolsters the stereotype that attornies’ best weapon is emotion and not reason.
John, next time you lose one of your frivolous money-making lawsuits, get over it before you come to this blog to vent.

John August 10, 2006 at 4:37 pm

The above comment “poping-off” should be read as “popping-off”…oops…Freud would have a field day with that one!
John

John August 10, 2006 at 4:51 pm

John E,
I’m one of those evil trial attorneys that works for a Legal Aid organization…my clientele are strictly below the poverty level, and our organization doesn’t sue for money…we advocate exclusively for the legal rights of the poor…I’m not bitter about losing million dollar lawsuits…If I am bitter, I’m bitter about doing my best to help my clients, being a good husband and father, and being a good Catholic, working for peanuts, and having hero-worshippers like you attack my character while Jimmy creates conversation that is neither Holy nor healthy.
Your stereotypes about attorneys come through loud and clear in your comments John, and you reinforce my concern and irritation with accepted lawyer bashing, like this article evokes.
your concerns about my personal comments re Jimmy are addressed above.
John

Dennis_Mahon August 10, 2006 at 5:17 pm

To be blunt, “John”–I don’t believe you. I think you just attacked Jimmy to drown out your own guilty feelings.

Mary August 10, 2006 at 5:57 pm

Senator Edwards made a mint by suing doctors, claiming that children suffered cerebal palsy because the doctors didn’t perform C-sections.
C-sections have sky-rocketed as a consequence.
Cerebral palsy hasn’t declined.
Women who suffer as a result of unnecessary surgery aren’t getting any of Edwards’s millions to recompense them.

SDG August 10, 2006 at 6:06 pm

John:

I assume that’s blogosphere speak for censoring a dissenting opinion, or excluding the same from access to the rest of the pack for nonconformity?

Incorrectly. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with Da Rulz.

For the record, my comment re Jimmy was in fun, and as much a light hearted punch at Jimmy as it was at myself

I’ll take you at your word as regards your intent, although your attempt at light-hearted humor comes oddly after your crack about “massive, pervasive clergy abuse” and your scolding cries of “shame shame, Jimmy,” etc.
Incidentally, you may be projecting somewhat… Jimmy is neither uncomfortable nor little (I’m six foot even, and he towers over me)… and your reasons for wearing a beard are your own.

If you think I’m too vitriolic, aggressive, image-non-concerned, I’m sorry to hear that…but expose yourself a little bit in your next post…let someone comment negatively about the reasonable choices you’ve made in your life, and see if you don’t respond…

Are you serious, John? Jimmy deals with people doing just that about his profession All. The. Time. And for that matter, so do I. Responding with grace is a point of pride for Jimmy, and for me. It’s a discipline I’d recommend to you.

MissJean August 10, 2006 at 6:08 pm

John, you wrote, “I do take exception to the generation of conversation though, that invariably WILL lead to aggressive attacks against lawyers…”
Huh? You want to censor the topic on the off-chance that it will turn aggressive? And yet you’re the most aggressive one I see. The first post seemed to be tongue-in-cheek… ending with a smiley, no less.
I think it’s a fair topic. There are plenty of lawsuits that are unjust; e.g. a current lawsuit against my old neighbour by the parents of a teenager who tore up his leg in her yard. Of course, he was running in the dark after breaking her lawn decorations and throwing the remains on her porch. But shortly after she decided not to press charges, the parents turned around and sued.
If you’ve been a lawyer for a while, surely you’ve run into others who were out for themselves even more than their clients. Or lawyers who can’t go out of their way to argue their “case” at every moment; e.g. verbally lambasting waiters, parking attendants, etc. If not, lucky you! It’s not pleasant to find others in your profession who don’t fight the good fight.

John August 10, 2006 at 6:10 pm

Dennis,
Blunt is good, but a word of warning…not well received here…
I’m curious about your comment, “”John”–I don’t believe you.”
Are you saying you don’t believe my name is John, that I’m Catholic, that I’m married with kids, that I’m a lawyer, that I’m a legal Aid attorney, you don’t believe I’ve never sued out a case for money? Please elaborate.
I swear to you, before God, I’m everything I’ve made myself out to be in this blog…I try cases, represent clients at hearings and settlement conferences, do all of the ordinary stuff Legal Aid attorneys do for their clients. I’m Catholic, married, five kids.
Guilty…no! I’ve been with Legal Aid since I became licensed, and don’t apologize for any aspect of my practice. I’ve done a lot of good for my clients, and deserve your respect, not your criticism. And I can tell you honestly, that very few trial lawyers argue million dollar cases. Lumping me and the vast majority of my colleagues into the “guilty” feelings club category betrays your own prejudices (and is precisely why I have problems with articles like this).
As per the first comment in this post, the “evil trial lawyers” mentioned above are about as prevalent as the evil engineers, teachers, doctors, priests, nuns, deacons, etc. that we both know and love. Show me a study describing a group of professionals without an element of bad-acting, major evildoers, and I’ll show you a study rife with bad data. Think about that the next time you decide it’s open season on lawyers!
It’s interesting how you folks enjoy a sort of mutual admiration society here, with Jimmy as your sort of poster boy. Tow the party line and it’s all biscuits and gravy…take offense to an article and disagree openly, and look out!!! Suddenly I’m a poor example for my profession, a liar, confused, vitriolic, bitter, angry…How Catholic…I even had a chap above suggest Jimmy might want to ex communicato bloggo me.
Again…my beef is with Jimmy opening the “100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea” can of worms garbage that is simply unnecesary, and totally forseeable…Again look at the first several posts…ostensibly Catholics like you and me, railing on my colleagues and my profession.
If you don’t believe me Dennis, I don’t know what to say…sounds like you’ve decided what you like about Jimmy’s article…and dislike about me…your free will Brother…
Peace,
John

MissJean August 10, 2006 at 6:13 pm

John, you wrote, “I do take exception to the generation of conversation though, that invariably WILL lead to aggressive attacks against lawyers…”
Huh? You want to censor the topic on the off-chance that it will turn aggressive? And yet you’re the most aggressive one I see. The first post seemed to be tongue-in-cheek… ending with a smiley, no less.
I think it’s a fair topic. There are plenty of lawsuits that are unjust; e.g. a current lawsuit against my old neighbour by the parents of a teenager who tore up his leg in her yard. Of course, he was running in the dark after breaking her lawn decorations and throwing the remains on her porch. But shortly after she decided not to press charges, the parents turned around and sued.
If you’ve been a lawyer for a while, surely you’ve run into others who were out for themselves even more than their clients. Or lawyers who can’t go out of their way to argue their “case” at every moment; e.g. verbally lambasting waiters, parking attendants, etc. If not, lucky you! It’s not pleasant to find others in your profession who don’t fight the good fight.

David B. August 10, 2006 at 6:39 pm

John,
My whole post was a joke! relax and chill out!

John August 10, 2006 at 6:41 pm

Miss Jean,
I’m not censoring Jimmy’s article, I’m just chiming in. I do know some bad, some might say awful lawyers who have no business practicing. But I’ve also know a scary number of alcoholic/gay/slovenly priests and nuns who clearly could care less about the Mass or the Eucharist and one who was a molester, I’ve known two child molesting teachers, I’ve know doctors and nurses (my wife’s profession) who have been removed from practice for gross misconduct, and many other professionals who don’t deserve the title. The vast majority of priests, nuns, teachers, doctors, nurses, and yes…even lawyers, however, are hard working professionals who deserve our respect! The difference here, though, is lawyers in my experience tend to be open targets for rebuke and insult, as do priests to a lesser degree.
Bottom line: Jimmy can post all the articles about lawyers he wants to, and as long as the article amounts to(or until Jimmy asks me to step-off), from my perspective, a negative unfounded analysis of lawyers and our worth, or generates forseeably negative commentary re the same, I’ll respond.
I honestly love and respect Jimmy for 99% of what he does, but this article rubs me…
John

David B. August 10, 2006 at 6:45 pm

“lawyers… tend to be open targets for rebuke and insult, as do priests to a lesser degree.”
Can’t agree there, my man. Priests are hated more by more people than anyone in any other calling.

John August 10, 2006 at 7:01 pm

Perhaps David…my experience has been otherwise, but I’m not privy to any stats on the topic…you could be right…unfortunately priests amd lawyers do share some unfortunate stats that I have heard of…in law school we had a person come in to our class one day and talk about addiction services for lawyers…apparently the top two professions, with the most per capita alcoholics, were lawyers and priests…go figure…
John

Anne Louise August 10, 2006 at 7:02 pm

Er John,
I think you are on a pre-emptive strike here. Nobody said that ALL lawyers are greedy and bad.
And for the record, not ALL of Jimmy’s blog readers (even few, I think) subscribe to this behaviour you speak of – “It’s interesting how you folks enjoy a sort of mutual admiration society here, with Jimmy as your sort of poster boy. Tow the party line and it’s all biscuits and gravy…take offense to an article and disagree openly, and look out!!!” So grant us the same openness that you ask for (it’s bordering on demand to me).
You said that you are deserving of our respect. As far as I can see, no one is spitting on your profession or your choice of career. It is your behaviour that the commentors have an issue with. And I am sure that everyone agrees that in every profession, there are those who fall short of the ethical standards involved. People here are calling them as they sees ‘em. Btw, no one demands for respect (save for parents :P ), they have to earn it. Since you started off dropping a bomb, the respect that one usually accords to his fellow man at first sight has been forfeited.
And why do you keep insisting that you are a good Catholic? Is anyone here doing the same thing? They are not elevating themselves, but pointing to good behaviour and habits (in reference to what SDG said about a discipline).
Just.chill.out.

David B. August 10, 2006 at 7:12 pm

John,
I know a priest, and have a slight idea of what they face every day, so I’m not surprised that some of them have fallen.

MissJean August 10, 2006 at 7:14 pm

John, the key is here that your experience is that lawyers get insulted openly. What other job have you had? I’ve been a journalist, headed into communication law, and … well, I’m now a teacher! (Long story. Suffice to say that I was determined to run from my calling!, but God kicked my butt. Lol!) Trust me when I say that lawyers don’t get the brunt of John Stossel. When you want to see his open hostility, look at his reports on education.
And right now, it stinks to be a journalist. It doesn’t matter if you’re an honest reporter working (usually) 45-50 hours a week and every other weekend for about $20K. People equate reporters with lying, bias, etc. (You know, like lawyers, but with no fashion sense… ha ha)

MissJean August 10, 2006 at 7:20 pm

Oh, dear. I cut myself off. I just wanted to add that when the topics of journalism or teachers come up, I try to be as charitable as possible when considering the posted comments. It’s far too easy to take them personally, but my experience has been that people here are generally kind.

Ed Peters August 10, 2006 at 7:21 pm

It’s not lawyers. It’s judges.

David B. August 10, 2006 at 7:30 pm

Uh, in my opinion, it’s all judge Alioto’s fault, and uh, we should kick him out of the judgeship, or whatever it’s called, and uh, put another Kennedy on the bench, er…in my humble opinion.
Regards,
Ted Kennedy

John August 10, 2006 at 7:32 pm

Miss Jean,
I’ve had a fairly ecclectic range of jobs…
Charity is a great idea..my experience has been different (not personally until today), but perhaps I’ll share less and listen more…thanks for your post…
Ed,
Judges suffer a high alcoholism rate, or do you refer to something else?
John

Brother Cadfael August 10, 2006 at 7:36 pm

I don’t know what Ed was refering to, but if judges would do a better job of utilizing available rules and procedures to deal with frivolous lawsuits, we wouldn’t have to worry about tort reform and damage caps and the like.

David B. August 10, 2006 at 7:37 pm

I like good debates, as long as they don’t get personal. FWIW, I’ve try to not be rude, though I know I’ve failed several times.

Francis DS August 10, 2006 at 8:24 pm

>reflecting the amazing litigiousness of contemporary >American society.
I often wonder how big a component of your Gross National Product is composed of frivolous and unproductive lawsuits?

John August 10, 2006 at 8:32 pm

Not to interrupt, but given my questionable impact on this thread this evening, I thought I would share a joke I just received from a friend, and sign off:
A priest, a Pentecostal preacher, and a Rabbi all served as chaplains to the students of the
University of Montana in Missoula. They would get together two or three times a week for coffee and to talk shop.
One day, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn’t really all that hard. A real challenge would be to preach to a bear.
One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it. Seven days later they’re all together to discuss the experience.
Father Flannery, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages, goes first.
“Well,” he says, “I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy God, he became as gentle a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation.”
Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. In his best fire and brimstone oratory he claimed, “WELL brothers, you KNOW that we don’t sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God’s HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So I quick DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising The Lord.”
They both looked down at the rabbi, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV’s and monitors running in and out of him. He was in bad shape. The rabbi looks up and says, “Looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best way to start.”
Have a nice evening,
John

bill912 August 10, 2006 at 8:36 pm

John, that was a long way to go, but it was worth the trip!

Marty Helgesen August 10, 2006 at 9:29 pm

I recommend the site http://www.stellaawards.com/ and the free newsletter offered there. It’s both entertaining and informative. It’s run by Randy Cassingham, who also publishes a free newsletter of weird news items. For further information see http://www.thisistrue.com/ (Although he also offers an expanded version of the thisistrue newsletter for people who insist on sending money, there is no hard sell to upgrade.)

Peter August 11, 2006 at 11:24 am

I agree with there being bad people in most all professions but just leave us engineers out of it. Ok?

CaeliDS August 11, 2006 at 11:50 am

*sniff*
I just love happy endings.

Previous post:

Next post: