<?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: Judge okays exclusion of damaging emails from BP oil spill&#160;trial</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html</link>
	<description>Brain candy for Happy Mutants</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:45:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Bartlett</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1343436</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Bartlett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1343436</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m afraid I&#039;ve all but lost that capacity. It takes an act of pretty staggering corruption/depravity to raise my eyebrows, nowadays.

That party threw by the foreclosure law firm making fun of homeless people did it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m afraid I&#8217;ve all but lost that capacity. It takes an act of pretty staggering corruption/depravity to raise my eyebrows, nowadays.</p>
<p>That party threw by the foreclosure law firm making fun of homeless people did it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thebes</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1343216</link>
		<dc:creator>Thebes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1343216</guid>
		<description>Behold the wonderful efficiency of Corporatacracy.

(well, it is an efficient way for the elite to multiply their wealth, and that&#039;s all that matters)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Behold the wonderful efficiency of Corporatacracy.</p>
<p>(well, it is an efficient way for the elite to multiply their wealth, and that&#8217;s all that matters)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: benher</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1343112</link>
		<dc:creator>benher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1343112</guid>
		<description>We wouldn&#039;t want to hurt BPs feelings...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We wouldn&#8217;t want to hurt BPs feelings&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dioptase</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1343034</link>
		<dc:creator>dioptase</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1343034</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately I have to agree with the judge on the &quot;shitty job&quot; email.  It lacks any details that would link what the author didn&#039;t like to the failure.  Was it messy?  Slow?  Expensive?  Or is the author pissed about something else and deriding the cement job just to be insulting?  Without specific context, the email is inflammatory (no pun intended), not evidence. 

However it is reason to depose the dude.  All anyone has to do is ask the author &quot;What did you think of the cementing job?&quot; during a deposition.  Then you&#039;d get the full gory details missing from the email.

If it was still excluded, it&#039;s because the geologist couldn&#039;t offer any details supporting calling it shitty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately I have to agree with the judge on the &#8220;shitty job&#8221; email.  It lacks any details that would link what the author didn&#8217;t like to the failure.  Was it messy?  Slow?  Expensive?  Or is the author pissed about something else and deriding the cement job just to be insulting?  Without specific context, the email is inflammatory (no pun intended), not evidence. </p>
<p>However it is reason to depose the dude.  All anyone has to do is ask the author &#8220;What did you think of the cementing job?&#8221; during a deposition.  Then you&#8217;d get the full gory details missing from the email.</p>
<p>If it was still excluded, it&#8217;s because the geologist couldn&#8217;t offer any details supporting calling it shitty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Manny</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1342941</link>
		<dc:creator>Manny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1342941</guid>
		<description> Kickstarter?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Kickstarter?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bubba73</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1342822</link>
		<dc:creator>Bubba73</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1342822</guid>
		<description>The optimist part of me says that the judge has more than enough evidence accrued to find against them without introducing elements that may give rise to appeal, and that this is why these particular gems were precluded. 

On the other hand....money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The optimist part of me says that the judge has more than enough evidence accrued to find against them without introducing elements that may give rise to appeal, and that this is why these particular gems were precluded. </p>
<p>On the other hand&#8230;.money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EH</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1342787</link>
		<dc:creator>EH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1342787</guid>
		<description>Or even more simply, that judges are getting more brazen about their corruption. Reflecting upon the judicial and prosecutorial attitude toward bankers and real estate people over the past three-plus years, they don&#039;t have anything to worry about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or even more simply, that judges are getting more brazen about their corruption. Reflecting upon the judicial and prosecutorial attitude toward bankers and real estate people over the past three-plus years, they don&#8217;t have anything to worry about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mordicai</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1342741</link>
		<dc:creator>Mordicai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1342741</guid>
		<description>What steps are available for us as citizens to express our official displeasure with these events?  Anybody got a billion dollars to get noticed? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What steps are available for us as citizens to express our official displeasure with these events?  Anybody got a billion dollars to get noticed? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Bisker</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1342735</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Bisker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1342735</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m surprised that I still am capable of thinking this way, but my first thought was: &quot;You&#039;re joking. Please be joking.&quot; But no. Nope.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m surprised that I still am capable of thinking this way, but my first thought was: &#8220;You&#8217;re joking. Please be joking.&#8221; But no. Nope.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCAQTony</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/02/10/judge-oks-exclusion-of-damag.html#comment-1342654</link>
		<dc:creator>SCAQTony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=143340#comment-1342654</guid>
		<description>Quite simply this is the nothing short of the federal government ensuring that no US company is blamed or made to take responsibilities for this disaster despite proof to the contrary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quite simply this is the nothing short of the federal government ensuring that no US company is blamed or made to take responsibilities for this disaster despite proof to the contrary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
