Comments on: Dr. Dolan’s Cross: FUBYAS underage? YAS, YAS–or maybe not

By: Gene

Gene — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:29:51 +0000

Re-reading this entry after 2 years, I realize I never specified what FUBYAS in the title referred to: it’s industry-speak for “First Usual Brand Young Adult Smoker”–a highly-coveted market share, as that first brand enjoys an enviably long period of brand loyalty.

In addition, I’m sure there are many things I should correct or clarify, but the rest will have to stand as is. . . .

By: tobacco observer

tobacco observer — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:27:44 +0000

Gene,

I also kind of wish you would spend a little more time relating facts and testimony from the trial, rather than dwelling on the appearances and demeanors of the witnesses, but that’s just me. But, you’re doing fine; really. Its your site, you might as well have fun with it. If thinking of the trial as a stageplay (which it is, in a sense) motivates you, great.

I’m appreciative of this site and the work you are doing here.

Your comments HAVE to be superficial; to dissect everything that is going on carefully would take severalfold more time than the actual testimony itself, and you’re right, having a whole team of analysts to do it would be the way to go. You’d need doctors, lawyers, economists, scientists, marketers, tobacco industry people, etc.

On Dolan’s testimony, suffice it to say that Dr. Dolan was long on allegations and short on proof. Making wild allegations (uncontested) for publication is a little different than proving said allegations in a court of law, as we learned here. If the DOJ is relying on him to support their “youth marketing” pillar, that part of their building has just collapsed.

By: Gene Borio

Gene Borio — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 02:04:05 +0000

Please note that Liggett, not Mr. Marks, was the “runt of the litter,” ie, the smallest tobacco company. The decriptions are meant to give some flavor of the looks, styles and characters of the people involved and are never meant to be derogatory.

I also wish I had the time to reprise many of the major arguments. Considering the importance of the trial, I wish we had an entire team to deal with arguments, documents and analysis. That’s what it really deserves.

As it is, there is a balance involved here, I recognize; your point is well taken.

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 19:27:02 +0000

I’m sorry but did anyone else mind the writing style of this “article:” compairing Aaron Marks to a wolf runt begging for a scrap of carcus, Mr. Goldfarb to a divine JFK and Mr. Bernik to an inhuman karate master. Where is a list of sustained and overruled objections, quotes of the best and worst arguments or even pirmary participants? Perhaps I am an extreme minority but, when I research court hearings I don’t expect commentary from Terry Pratchet.