Ahhh but it does say you are the editor.lolIs a very good indepth review.
Shame it took so long to get the book into print after the conference. I've handled it and was especially drawn to the index. I thought it quite beautiful and probably worth publication in its own right.Peter Rogerson did a useful review, though it's a shame he has misspelled Robin Wooffitt's name. Actually the whole thing could do with some proof reading.
Easily I agree but I contemplate the list inform should have more info then it has.
I think I'm going to have to side with Anonymous 2 on this one. I, too, contemplate the list inform should have more info then it has.But then again, I'm hardly likely to agree with Anonymous 1 who, by their own admission was a dump and downright pessimistic person.Bloody good index though.
I was "what" I edited and not "what" I wrote?