Colleagues, I have been reading the thread on the AMH missive with both amusement and bemusement, and wodnerment at the strong views so many of you have. However the most recent posting by Hugh Leslie makes me concerned it is making things worse rather than better. The problem with Hugh's message is that it is impossible for any reader to determine if it is authentic or a spoof, hence it cannot serve as any form of remedy if the aim is to truly apologise, and cutoff the pathway to a lawsuit. The only reliable course of action is for Mr Farrell to write to Thinus and for Thinus to issue Mr Farrell's letter of retraction with Mr farrell's agreement. cheers jon Quoting Hugh Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have been asked by Mr Peter Farrell to post the following. > > APOLOGY TO AUSTRALIAN MEDICINES HANDBOOK > I recently posted some comments regarding Australian Medicines Handbook, > in > response to an earlier > posting by Dr F. M. Janse van Rensburg regarding the pAMH. > I was uninformed about the full facts of the matter. I now acknowledge > that > there is no suggestion that AMH > would act in any misleading, unethical or illegal way to convert any > purchaser of AMH to a subscription > package without their full and informed consent. Nor is there any > suggestion > that such an unauthorised > conversion has ever taken place in the past. > I retract the comments I made regarding AMH, apologise unreservedly for > any > negative impression created > and acknowledge that there is nothing to suggest that AMH does not > operate > at the highest ethical > standards. > Dr. Hugh Leslie > > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
