> I like to shape my opinions from facts, not the other way around.
> When I went to the site which supposedly has the infamous leaflet
> which our two little gadflies distributed, I see a lame disclaimer
> which states that the original is "out-of-print."
> Hey, don't take my word for it:
I check out the page you spoke of and read what you call a disclaimer.
I then scrolled down and read the factsheet you seem incapable of locating.
> Wasn't the original leaflet submitted as evidence in court?
Obviously - since that is what the trial was about.
> You'd think somebody would have the guts to disseminate the original,
> unabridged document here. It is, after all, rather central to the
> case at hand--for the rare few of you here who actually give a rip
> about the facts.
Perhaps you had better spend a little more time using your eyes and your brain instead of your mouth and your fingers. The factsheet in question is clearly available on this site - along with a more up-to-date version in a number of languages. No body appears to be hiding anything - I found links to the factsheet all over the site (you have look around the site haven't you?).