©¿©

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:36:51 +0100, Paul {Hamilton Rooney}
<craig@oilfield.com> wrote:

>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.c om...
>>>>>> 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?
>
>Quite. Was that an attempt to imply that he did consult it? If so, why is
>he now saying that he bought his copy after writing his own book? How is
>this relevant?