Timing of libel lawsuits, etc.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/17/2008 1:49:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

quackadillian@... writes:

but I

have to wonder why

some of these longtime denial industry " players " are so desperate to be seen

in a positive light right now.

Quackadillian,

Answer: Because they are losing the war. Reports like the GAO are

discrediting them left and right as the science moves forward.

Sharon Noonan Kramer

**************BUY Indiana and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on DVD

today!

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1209326865x1200539441/aol?redir=http://\

www.indianajones.com/site/index.html)

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

You don't have to answer, (in fact, this isn't directed at any person) but I

have to wonder why

some of these longtime denial industry " players " are so desperate to be seen

in a positive light right now.

I wonder if perhaps the fact that its an election year might have something

to do with the timing?

Its impossible to tell, but it might make sense. At least it might give

people one fairly viable answer to the sticky questions in depositions?

I think a lot of people have been sort of,

well, turning testimony into a very lucrative business telling courts what

they are paid to say on bahalf of well-heeled defendants..

They don't see that sideline that may be far more profitable than any

legitimate jobs -

as being able to continue - unless they would manage to SOMEHOW remain

plausibly ignorant of a lot of

things, which gets harder and harder to do successfully.

You would have to avoid being known to know things, while at the same time,

maintaining credentials on paper.

If anyone makes things clear that they should be aware of but don't want to

be, in order to successfully ply their trade,

one could imagine that some folk might only have a few options. Since you

can't turn back time (I don't want to even attempt to descend into that

mindset but

its not an enviable position - the easy money might stop and they might even

have to give some of it back? (or they should have to!)

Attacking the messenger on anything that could not be absolutely proven

beyond a doubt,

even if it seemed obvious to most folk who had been following the subject

(how could a jury come up to speed on a complicated subject - with the

constraints on a trial?)

might - I'm guessing, be one of the only options???