Ritva Kurittu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > yes, you gave the quote twice. Both time it was
> commented on and a question about it was asked
> you.
>
>
> When you brought up the subject of Isler's book in
> your previous post, you said that he doesn't
> mention "seqed". I regret that I haven't read the
> book, and therefore can't comment.
>
> Sorry, I imagined you having read it!

No ... I did say, "Isler, I wouldn't know", if you remember ...

R: A short
> summa summarum: Isler does not mention calculation
> at any point. Can you guess why?
>
> H:
> But why should you have thought that I was
> implying that Isler's work would be valueless if
> Gillings were not listed in the bibliography?
>
> R: Because that was the only thing you asked about
> the book. Had you read the book, I would have
> expected you to comment on Isler's suggested
> methods. On the other hand, had you not, I'd have
> expected you to ask what the book was suggesting.
> In neither case did "does he have Gillings in his
> bibliography?" as the one and only question enter
> my own mind. Therefore I naturally concluded, that
> this was the most important matter for you.

But, so far, you haven't even mentioned the title of the book! (Was it Sticks, stones, and shadows, by any chance ?? ) You wonder why I asked a question about a bibliography ... But, if I had read the book - and I did explain that I hadn't - surely I wouldn't have needed to ask that question in the first place?

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me