Comments:Law firm tries to ban new book by Cambridge Press

Ah, capitalism. You've helped democracy so much...I really feel for this guy, maybe he can give into demands then, whoops, accidentally leak the original copy... --Poisonous (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Reason to believe"???
The law firm is quoted as saying that they "...have reason to believe that the Book may contain serious, untrue and damaging defamatory allegations about our client..." It makes one wonder how they can be so certain about the contents of an unpublished book. But, maybe Mr. Client was sent an advance copy so he could write up a nice blurb for the dust jacket. —Eodril (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is terrible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.154.26.251 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Both sides of the story?
Was Spicer contacted for comment? 69.140.152.55 02:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why print it and waste paper
Why print it and waste paper? Hasn't technology arrived yet at our door? I use a very small device to read, a bit larger than a telephone. Release it as creative commons by-sa if possible, in any country outside the UK. Logictheo (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)