<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: vioxx con dios</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/</link>
	<description>breathless punditry and one-breath poetry with David Giacalone</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:58:52 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: David Giacalone</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-5598</link>
		<dc:creator>David Giacalone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-5598</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Hello, Martin.&#160; Despite being a self-described consumer advocate (or maybe because of it) I&#039;ve never had sympathy for get-rich-quicksters who get cheated out of the small investment they want to believe could become a fortune --&lt;EM&gt; especially&lt;/EM&gt; when they know or should have known that someone else was getting swindled to create their jackpot.&#160;&#160; I meant to&#160;speculate earlier that Merck might be behind the webpage or might&#160;be&#160;the real target of&#160;the offer to sell the site, so that it&#160;could obtain the names being generated:&#160; making a list and checking it twice. 
It&#039;s clear that your post, as usual, was less judgmental than Walter&#039;s -- more into being &quot;bemusatory&quot; than being accusatory.&#160; I know the ol&#039; RiskProf is far from gullible.

Ain&#039;t it ironic that we&#039;re helping to increase &quot;Leon&#039;s&quot; page hits and ad rates?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>Hello, Martin.&nbsp; Despite being a self-described consumer advocate (or maybe because of it) I&#8217;ve never had sympathy for get-rich-quicksters who get cheated out of the small investment they want to believe could become a fortune &#8211;<em> especially</em> when they know or should have known that someone else was getting swindled to create their jackpot.&nbsp;&nbsp; I meant to&nbsp;speculate earlier that Merck might be behind the webpage or might&nbsp;be&nbsp;the real target of&nbsp;the offer to sell the site, so that it&nbsp;could obtain the names being generated:&nbsp; making a list and checking it twice.<br />
It&#8217;s clear that your post, as usual, was less judgmental than Walter&#8217;s &#8212; more into being &#8220;bemusatory&#8221; than being accusatory.&nbsp; I know the ol&#8217; RiskProf is far from gullible.</p>
<p>Ain&#8217;t it ironic that we&#8217;re helping to increase &#8220;Leon&#8217;s&#8221; page hits and ad rates?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Giacalone</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-7518</link>
		<dc:creator>David Giacalone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-7518</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Hello, Martin.&#160; Despite being a self-described consumer advocate (or maybe because of it) I&#039;ve never had sympathy for get-rich-quicksters who get cheated out of the small investment they want to believe could become a fortune --&lt;EM&gt; especially&lt;/EM&gt; when they know or should have known that someone else was getting swindled to create their jackpot.&#160;&#160; I meant to&#160;speculate earlier that Merck might be behind the webpage or might&#160;be&#160;the real target of&#160;the offer to sell the site, so that it&#160;could obtain the names being generated:&#160; making a list and checking it twice. 
It&#039;s clear that your post, as usual, was less judgmental than Walter&#039;s -- more into being &quot;bemusatory&quot; than being accusatory.&#160; I know the ol&#039; RiskProf is far from gullible.

Ain&#039;t it ironic that we&#039;re helping to increase &quot;Leon&#039;s&quot; page hits and ad rates?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>Hello, Martin.&nbsp; Despite being a self-described consumer advocate (or maybe because of it) I&#8217;ve never had sympathy for get-rich-quicksters who get cheated out of the small investment they want to believe could become a fortune &#8211;<em> especially</em> when they know or should have known that someone else was getting swindled to create their jackpot.&nbsp;&nbsp; I meant to&nbsp;speculate earlier that Merck might be behind the webpage or might&nbsp;be&nbsp;the real target of&nbsp;the offer to sell the site, so that it&nbsp;could obtain the names being generated:&nbsp; making a list and checking it twice.<br />
It&#8217;s clear that your post, as usual, was less judgmental than Walter&#8217;s &#8212; more into being &#8220;bemusatory&#8221; than being accusatory.&nbsp; I know the ol&#8217; RiskProf is far from gullible.</p>
<p>Ain&#8217;t it ironic that we&#8217;re helping to increase &#8220;Leon&#8217;s&#8221; page hits and ad rates?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-5597</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-5597</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Oh, I don&#039;t think it is written by a lawyer--In fact, I think it is a scam as it has some of the same features of the late night radio ads touting other get rich quick schemes. Tort reformers are not so gullible, but how about Joe Blow who wastes his $100 or is encouraged to commit a fraud on the court?  I figure it is like spam--it doesn&#039;t take much to start the ball rolling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>Oh, I don&#8217;t think it is written by a lawyer&#8211;In fact, I think it is a scam as it has some of the same features of the late night radio ads touting other get rich quick schemes. Tort reformers are not so gullible, but how about Joe Blow who wastes his $100 or is encouraged to commit a fraud on the court?  I figure it is like spam&#8211;it doesn&#8217;t take much to start the ball rolling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-7517</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-7517</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Oh, I don&#039;t think it is written by a lawyer--In fact, I think it is a scam as it has some of the same features of the late night radio ads touting other get rich quick schemes. Tort reformers are not so gullible, but how about Joe Blow who wastes his $100 or is encouraged to commit a fraud on the court?  I figure it is like spam--it doesn&#039;t take much to start the ball rolling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>Oh, I don&#8217;t think it is written by a lawyer&#8211;In fact, I think it is a scam as it has some of the same features of the late night radio ads touting other get rich quick schemes. Tort reformers are not so gullible, but how about Joe Blow who wastes his $100 or is encouraged to commit a fraud on the court?  I figure it is like spam&#8211;it doesn&#8217;t take much to start the ball rolling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Giacalone</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-5596</link>
		<dc:creator>David Giacalone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-5596</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Thanks for the info, Spork.&#160; 
Thanks for a quick and spirited response, Evan.&#160; I hope you do have more to say Underground.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>Thanks for the info, Spork.&nbsp;<br />
Thanks for a quick and spirited response, Evan.&nbsp; I hope you do have more to say Underground.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Giacalone</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-7516</link>
		<dc:creator>David Giacalone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-7516</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Thanks for the info, Spork.&#160; 
Thanks for a quick and spirited response, Evan.&#160; I hope you do have more to say Underground.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>Thanks for the info, Spork.&nbsp;<br />
Thanks for a quick and spirited response, Evan.&nbsp; I hope you do have more to say Underground.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-5595</link>
		<dc:creator>Evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:48:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-5595</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

What do I think?  Why are Overlawyered.com and RiskProf wasting their time on something so patently absurd?  They should have treated that &quot;ad&quot;--which obviously wasn&#039;t written by a lawyer, for numerous reasons--as the hoax that it is.  But to imply that it&#039;s a symptom of a system-gone-wrong: Are tort reformers really so gullible?  Or are they hoping that their readers are gullible--as gullible, that is, as the people who are supposed to be taken in by that Vioxx hoax?  If so, that sort of puts them all in the same league, if you ask me.

Maybe I&#039;ll have more to say about it on my site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>What do I think?  Why are&nbsp;<a href="http://Overlawyered.com" title="http://Overlawyered. " target="_blank">Overlawyered.com</a> and RiskProf wasting their time on something so patently absurd?  They should have treated that &#8220;ad&#8221;&#8211;which obviously wasn&#8217;t written by a lawyer, for numerous reasons&#8211;as the hoax that it is.  But to imply that it&#8217;s a symptom of a system-gone-wrong: Are tort reformers really so gullible?  Or are they hoping that their readers are gullible&#8211;as gullible, that is, as the people who are supposed to be taken in by that Vioxx hoax?  If so, that sort of puts them all in the same league, if you ask me.</p>
<p>Maybe I&#8217;ll have more to say about it on my site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-7515</link>
		<dc:creator>Evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:48:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-7515</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

What do I think?  Why are Overlawyered.com and RiskProf wasting their time on something so patently absurd?  They should have treated that &quot;ad&quot;--which obviously wasn&#039;t written by a lawyer, for numerous reasons--as the hoax that it is.  But to imply that it&#039;s a symptom of a system-gone-wrong: Are tort reformers really so gullible?  Or are they hoping that their readers are gullible--as gullible, that is, as the people who are supposed to be taken in by that Vioxx hoax?  If so, that sort of puts them all in the same league, if you ask me.

Maybe I&#039;ll have more to say about it on my site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>What do I think?  Why are&nbsp;<a href="http://Overlawyered.com" title="http://Overlawyered. " target="_blank">Overlawyered.com</a> and RiskProf wasting their time on something so patently absurd?  They should have treated that &#8220;ad&#8221;&#8211;which obviously wasn&#8217;t written by a lawyer, for numerous reasons&#8211;as the hoax that it is.  But to imply that it&#8217;s a symptom of a system-gone-wrong: Are tort reformers really so gullible?  Or are they hoping that their readers are gullible&#8211;as gullible, that is, as the people who are supposed to be taken in by that Vioxx hoax?  If so, that sort of puts them all in the same league, if you ask me.</p>
<p>Maybe I&#8217;ll have more to say about it on my site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spork</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-5594</link>
		<dc:creator>Spork</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:47:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-5594</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

The owner calls himself Leon, but the domain is registered to one &#039;Tyler McDonald&#039;.  View his resume... http://www.crackerjack.net/resume-06-2004.html

Now, he might just be renting out subdomains, but if that&#039;s the case, then he should maybe consider taking that account offline.  For bandwidth sake, of course...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>The owner calls himself Leon, but the domain is registered to one &#8216;Tyler McDonald&#8217;.  View his resume&#8230; <a href="http://www.crackerjack.net/resume-06-2004.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.crackerjack.net/resume-06-2004.html</a></p>
<p>Now, he might just be renting out subdomains, but if that&#8217;s the case, then he should maybe consider taking that account offline.  For bandwidth sake, of course&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spork</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/comment-page-1/#comment-7514</link>
		<dc:creator>Spork</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:47:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/11/15/vioxx-con-dios/#comment-7514</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

The owner calls himself Leon, but the domain is registered to one &#039;Tyler McDonald&#039;.  View his resume... http://www.crackerjack.net/resume-06-2004.html

Now, he might just be renting out subdomains, but if that&#039;s the case, then he should maybe consider taking that account offline.  For bandwidth sake, of course...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>The owner calls himself Leon, but the domain is registered to one &#8216;Tyler McDonald&#8217;.  View his resume&#8230; <a href="http://www.crackerjack.net/resume-06-2004.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.crackerjack.net/resume-06-2004.html</a></p>
<p>Now, he might just be renting out subdomains, but if that&#8217;s the case, then he should maybe consider taking that account offline.  For bandwidth sake, of course&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
