[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NYT endorses S. 1360, sort of too

To: JWRCLUM@aol.com
Subject: Re: NYT endorses S. 1360, sort of too
From: James Love <love@tap.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 14:40:12 -0500 (EST)
cc: med-privacy@essential.org
In-Reply-To: <951120133048_111770024@emout04.mail.aol.com>

On Mon, 20 Nov 1995 JWRCLUM@aol.com wrote:

> Did they read Part II of the bill?

   It does not appear that they even read their own newstory.
jamie


> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Love, love@tap.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176
Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt/cpt.html
Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.essential.org/tap/tap.html

References:
- Re: NYT endorses S. 1360, sort of too
  - From: JWRCLUM@aol.com

Prev by Date: nyt letters fax isn't 212-556-3522
Next by Date: Re: CPT letters to NYT
Prev by thread: Re: NYT endorses S. 1360, sort of too
Next by thread: Health Privacy Legislation - Part IV
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread