--- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There seems to be some confusion on this: Chopra at the time > > > WAS the TMO and he owned MAPI and the Lancaster Foundation. > > > > jstein wrote: > > No, he owned neither, as you know. (And MAPI, of > > course, as you know, was not involved in the suit.) > > > From what I've read, Chopra founded and owned MAPI > and the Lancaster Foundation;
Founded, as you know, did not "own." MAPI itself, as you know, was not involved in the suit. At the time "Letter from New Delhi" was published, as you know, Chopra was a consultant to MAPI. > Chopra was a plaintive in the suit against JAMA, the AMA, > and Skolnick. No, Chopra was never a plaintiff in the suit, as you know. > > Apparently Chopra was a Plaintive in the suit. > > > > No, he was not a plaintiff in the suit. > > > According to Chopra's attorney, the case was settled for an > undisclosed amount. If Chopra's attorney said that, as you know, he was either lying or didn't know what he was talking about. As you know, there was no settlement in the suit; it was dismissed. > > There isn't any confusion about it at all, other than > > the confusion you're attempting to create. > > > From what I've read, you seem confused. For example, you > didn't seem to realize that I was refering to > Skolnick's "Hoodwinked" article - that's why this thread is > entitled the "JAMA Caper". No, actually you were referring to Skolnick's JAMA article, as you know. > In addition, you > don't seem to want to admit that Chopra sued JAMA Chopra did not sue JAMA, as you know. when he was the > owner of MAPI and the Lancaster Foundation. Chopra did not own MAPI or the Lancaster Foundation, as you know.
