Nick:
>For the record, I think Dave Cake and Peter Metcalfe's posts in V7#603 re:
>the Parts of the Emperor cannot and need not be improved upon. And I agree
>100% with Peter's second (parenthesised) paragraph.
Heartily second that!
>BTW, I note that in the course of this discussion I have whole-heartedly and
>publicly agreed with a great number of other posters (Donald Oddy, Alex
>Ferguson, Michael O'Brien, Trotsky, Peter Metcalfe, Dave Cake). Perhaps the
>"consensus" Martin says he's looking for has been visible all along -- only
>it's the *wrong* consensus?
>
>(Always remember, though: "The opponents of Laurie were a conspiracy of wild
>rebels who sought to resurrect Gbaji." Who controls the present, controls
>the past...)
IMO, the crux of the problem we have here is that HW material is not being written in a way that is either particularly efficient or especially professional. As I understand it, Greg's hand-picked "regional experts" were not meant to be the authors of HW supplements, more reality checkers, collators and assimilators/sifters of data. However, in the case of "Lunar Expert" Martin, this no longer seems to apply: he's also got the gig writing the Lunar Book, and appears to be both author *and* editor of his own work. What's that adage about the lawyer representing himself... ?
Cheers,
MOB
Powered by hypermail