©¿©

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:26:30 +0100, ©¿© <icecool@isis232.com> wrote:

>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.co m...
>>>>> 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 (-:
>
>He admits to having a copy of Konters book, yes still claims he was
>unaware of Konters book when he wrote his version!!
>
>In article <ef0auuc8mn9pe9lkcnhiqol8omlrb4n...@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
><paulroo...@aol.com> writes
>
>
>>On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:44:23 +0000, Malcolm <M...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Thank you, Paul.
>
>
>>Don't mention it. I was a little surprised that you didn't come across
>>it in your extensive research though (-:
>
>
>
>You shouldn't jump to conclusions. And you shouldn't try and score
>points when you don't have all the facts. Do you know anything about
>it
>at all except what you read in the advert?
>
>I have a copy. Have you?