|
|
|
|
|
|
by nwah1
3099 days ago
|
|
|
I wasn't criticizing the act of short selling itself. I was criticizing the concept of an individual writing what amounts to a hit piece that was later retracted, and yet profiting off it despite the fact. Or, in the first case, alleging that a company led to the death of an individual, when later the charge of murder was dropped. It piqued my interest that in both cases, the meat of his allegations are at least highly ambiguous. As someone whose job is not nearly as difficult as working with opioid addicts, it would be difficult to condemn such people without damning evidence. That a person having respiratory issues might not be thought of as requiring hospitalization to me seems like something that could happen without negligence on the part of a rehab facility. And the idea that rehab facilities are inherently motivated by greed when compared to cheaper outpatient programs based around prescriptions seems to infer malice when the obvious conclusion is that some people really believe that approach is superior. This claim is the type of thing that a competitor might believe but nobody else should. |
|
|
That a person having respiratory issues might not be thought of as requiring his oxygen tank refilled strikes me as pretty clearly passing the "reasonable person" test for negligence, on the grounds that if I - with no first aid training to draw on - happened upon someone in such a strait, that would be among the first things I thought to check, once it was evident the person's airway was patent. It seems like an obvious enough concern, after all.
On the other hand, I do carry glucose tablets in my satchel against the possibility of happening on another person with diabetes in severe need of a blood sugar boost, so perhaps I am simply not in all respects a reasonable person.