> Also, someone in the u.k. has been reading the "top secret" docs... > > http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2560841,00.html > >
and so it spreads... http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/01/23/afx3351386.html http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/01/23/AM200701239.html Lilly's claims that the documents are incomplete are irrelevant. In another recent 1st Amendment battle U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV writes (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONVENTION_ARRESTS?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) "The mere fact that a given document does not provide the reader with a full picture does not make it unreliable," he wrote. "Additionally, the city gives the general public very little credit when it contends that readers will be unable to grasp that the information contained in these documents might be incomplete or inaccurate." > http://collections.plos.org/plosmedicine/diseasemongering-2006.php > > PLoS is an Open Access journal... free culture meets psych rights once again. > > - Fletch Sweet. _______________________________________________ Zyprexa-discuss mailing list Zyprexa-discuss@acm.jhu.edu http://lists.acm.jhu.edu/mailman/listinfo/zyprexa-discuss
