[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. IANAL but it does not look like a spoof to me. Hugh has used the correct wording for the formal retraction that is necessary to obviate a case of defamation.
I think Mr Peter Farrell is well within his rights. He has a commercial business and his livelihood to protect. I can cope with unjust wars, corruption in government and proprietary software but if somebody or some government agency attacks my livelihood I will come out swinging. Whether insisting on a formal public retraction is beneficial for growing the AMH market is perhaps a more interesting question. Payment by installment is used for thousands of products by millions of Australians. However, like Thinus, it is not a model that appeals to me. In any event I probably should disqualify myself from commenting since I do not believe in paying for general medical information. That's a concept from the last millennium. > 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 > Que? David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
