No I'd say the point is valid a fortiori because UC and Exxon suck and and BP don't but a viewpoint doesn't have to be right to be relevant, of course.

Relevance aside (since I wasn't talking about relevance), making a case that BP's response is great because on a scale of one to ten it doesn't score a zero doesn't really say much more than BP at least is going through the motions. Is that more than what UC or Exxon did? Sure. But what's the point? What makes UC or Exxon useful baselines for comparison?

As for Svanberg's use of "small people," I agree that his sentiment using a second language to him was honorable. English, however, is presumably not *your* second language ... so: nice bait =) Chum, chum, chum ... the water turns red ;-)