

The formatting is a bit different, but the disclaimer is still there, and all the links appear and are in the same order as the more recent version of the page.
Something those folks who are getting sued for taking Mr. Levant at his word should take note of.
PS. Looks like Ezra has abandoned the speechy Jihad. I eagerly await his next project--a book on the Tar Sands tentatively entitled "Oiled Up".
Update: Welcome Wells readers.
You'll notice if you click through my first link above, the text has changed. I think Ezra read my origonal post and did a bit of redacting of his own. He now writes:
...are they furiously editing their website to delete pages of links to virulently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups?
Now, if you click through this link, you go to a really ugly looking URL that gives you a "404 error"; Ezra claims this page used to be on the KAIROS site, and has been pulled since. True, if you link from one of the pages in the google cache version of the KAIROS site you hit this page. However, if you go to the current site, and click on Human Rights and Trade -> Countries of Concern ->Palestine & Israel, you go here, which is the page Ezra claims is missing. So it looks like he's calling KAIROS anti-Semitic based on his own inability to maneuver around a standard issue website.
Later, Ezra "evidence" mutates further. It appears that he has found the one Palestine-Israel page that previously (in October) lacked a disclaimer as noted above, and uses the fact that one was added later to argue that the site is "rife" with "after the fact editing" and link deletions.
Gerry Nichols, who once worked at the NCC, is right pissed-off at them.
And, by the way, even if Clement, as claimed, flew economy-class both ways, that's still only about $3,000 return per each of his two staffers and himself. Where did the other $20,000 go?
So, if I understand this. Each CRU email is named (given a numeric label, like "0826209667" in the above) based on the date/time it is sent. If you know UNIX you can translate the label back into the date. That's what the "->" indicates; the label 0826209667 = 7/03/1996 14:41:07. But if you match that to the date line you see they are off by 4/5 hours, which suggests that--given the emails were taken from a U.K. server--they passed through a computer in the Eastern U.S.
Which would indicate that the hack was indeed a hack and not a leak.
PS. Or, as TiGuy points out, they might have gone through a computer in Eastern Canada.
And here's is what you get when you run "inurl:pdf "mathematical trick"" through the same source.
In fact, if you look at the first link, you will note that was "invented in the context" of theoretical physics, so if there is a conspiracy, it goes much deeper than anyone has currently suggested.
PS. Just reading Desmog, I notice that someone else thought of running these searches before me.
...which is odd, because I was under the impression that the letter was republished several times afterwards, perhaps on the Concerned Christians website.
3) The kicker seems to be that the assault on a gay youth--which supposedly came about as a result of the letter, and was committed by (among others) an associate of Mr. Boisson who had been exposed repeatedly to the contents of the letter--is treated as alleged, and the evidence drawn from its circumstances as here say. I was under the impression from the original HRC case that none of this (other than the implications for Mr. Boisson's case) was in doubt.
4) In any case, the judge found that the law was misapplied in Boisson's case, and not that it was invalid. A reference was made to the Lemire constitutional challenge, about which the judge wrote