©¿©

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:12:43 +0100, ©¿© <icecool@isis232.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:52:31 +0100, Paul {Hamilton Rooney}
><craig@oilfield.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:41:24 +0100, "Jim Webster"
>><Jim@websterpagespabank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul {Hamilton Rooney}" <craig@oilfield.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hr7bf2pvi9e7cg92n0pbcgrcq1ckd6qahf@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:58:44 +0100, "Jim Webster"
>>>> <Jim@websterpagespabank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >"Paul {Hamilton Rooney}" <craig@oilfield.com> wrote in message
>>>> >news:i72bf25qam02ku192bpdib8h2dtk5eulud@4ax.com.. .
>>>> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:18:16 +0100, "Jim Webster"
>>>> >> <Jim@websterpagespabank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >"Paul {Hamilton Rooney}" <craig@oilfield.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> >news:g60bf2pde3e1ae9pm48cterco66a3ocb95@4ax.com.. .
>>>> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:11:31 +0100, "Jim Webster"
>>>> >> >> <Jim@websterpagespabank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >"Paul {Hamilton Rooney}" <craig@oilfield.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> >news:srvaf2hi7jl4bbtdjm2k9akq9evrp0khl0@4ax.com.. .
>>>> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:55:55 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> >> ><Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> A simple answer to a straight question would suffice: did you
>>>> >> >acknowledge
>>>> >> >> >> Konter's work in your book?
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >so you haven't actually read both books?
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> I haven't read either, Jim. Grebes aren't my thing. >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >so without reading either book you accuse someone of copying?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So without reading any messages you accuse someone of accusing someone
>>>of
>>>> >> copying?
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> Noted - no response.
>>>> >
>>>> >so you haven't read his book then, that's all I wanted to establish.
>>>> >I now know what value to put on your opinion of the issue
>>>>
>>>> What issue? As far as I can tell the only issue under discussion is
>>>> Malcolm's claim to have written the first ever book on grebes. Did you
>>>have
>>>> some other issue in mind?
>>>>
>>>
>>>well you seem to be accusing him of copying someone elses book.
>>
>>Bollocks, Jim. Try reading before jumping in.
>>
>>>If not then fair enough, but it does seem a strange accusation to make if
>>>you haven't read both books.
>>>Also he might be correct, his may be the first attempt to write a definitive
>>>book on grebes.
>>
>>No. That was André Konter's book, which was sitting on Malcolm's shelf
>>while he typed his claim (-: