Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Mike B. on 1/11/10
Anybody who knows what they're talking about already knows that "environmental justice" is
NOT in its infancy. Sharon is totally wrong on this point. She should stick to mold and her related hysteria.
On 1/11/10, Mike B. wrote:
> Anybody who knows what they're talking about already knows that "environmental justice" is
> On 1/11/10, Sharon wrote:
>> You write, "I want the individual that think they have a good chance of breaking even
>> in litigation over toxic mold air to go outside and take a few breaths to clear the head; and make interior home
>> changes to improve upon their health."
>> Like I said, self professed loser who thinks it is his obligation to direct others to be the same. I don't know what
>> country you live it, but I live in the United States of America. If people are injured by willful negligence of
>> another then they are entitled to restitution. And IF they get restitution, then those who are negligent will think
>> twice before they do it again, staving off unnecessary injury to others. The issue is not mold. It is the growing of
>> environmental justice - an area of litigation that is in its infancy, and must be properly nurtured in the name of
>> public health.
>> What gives you the right to hold yourself out as omnipitent that others must agree to be losers, too, just like you?
>> You did not answer my question: If you are so over this issue, then why are you still here posting to this board?
>> Face it, John. A main theme in your posts has always been and continues to be that you do not like upity old
>> sorority girls from Ole Miss. Fiddle de de. It is irrelevant in my life what you do and so..I am not even going to
>> bother to think about it another day.
>> On 1/08/10, johncodie wrote:
>>> On 1/08/10, Sharon wrote:
>>>> Oh, okay. Now I get it.
>>>> You are a self professed loser who thinks any of these poor people who have been injured by mold should not
>>>> attempt to fight for their rights and you believe that you are helping them by telling them they are a hopeless
>>>> lot who should just accept their position in life and not get upity. Never mind that alot of these people would
>>>> not even have sick children or be broke IF someone had made them aware that poor indoor air quality can severely
>>>> adversely impact one's life.
>>>> Okay, now I get it. You have lost all hope in your life, but need to control something and as such, think it is
>>>> your responsibility to deem that all others are obligated to do the same.
>>>> I must have missed your answer. Tell me again, if you are so over this issue then why are you still here
>>> Anything but a loser, but I work with kin folk in a plant, not far from where you were raised. We commute and
>>> have a viable business supporting the defense industry. I pass those less fortunate that either walk, or catch
>>> the metro bus that are also gain fully employed. Perhaps I would be better off without the commute and would
>>> prefer using the metro. What you have missed is wealth, or being poor has little to do with common sense. The
>>> abiltiy to think clearly the intentions of others, or continued outcome. Being upity is an state of mind having
>>> reflection on ones intelligence. I wouldn't class people I am, came from, and family to are "these people". You
>>> over emphasis indoor air quality as the reason an individual is homeless, or the source of their childrens illness.
>>> I am not the individual that appears to have prematurly aged 20 years, and have had such a drastic change in my
>>> appearnce. I have no intentions of controlling you. Your totally lost in a dozen banker's boxes of legal papers
>>> your trying to arrange for your attorny to lower the cost of next round of litigation. Your plane your waiting
>>> for is your next smoke break outside. I want the individual that think they have a good chance of breaking even
>>> in litigation over toxic mold air to go outside and take a few breaths to clear the head; and make interior home
>>> changes to improve upon their health.
>>> Your group is tainted in validity, and don't have any supporting data. You would have won hands down with the
>>> jury if you had any credible evidence of having a winning team. What you have not come to terms with is you lost
>>> by a large majority.
Posts on this thread, including this one