I find it interesting that there has been much more focus on the authentication of the "evidential" document than there ever has been on the veracity of the information contained therein. While it seems there is little doubt that the document is a fake, there has been, so for, no credible or testimonial evidence presented to refute its allegations.
Why would anyone spend their time answering the charges made on the basis of a fake document? If the document is a fake, then it is reasonable to assume that the information in it is worthless, unless there is other supporting documentation to support the original claims. There have been allegations, but no evidence. Just because you want it to be, doesn't make it so.
-- "Slump? I ain't in no slump. I just ain't hitting." --Yogi Bera -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
