I can't believe it

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Hello.
From the day 1( or 2), many people tried to convince me that the guys at Everyman chess did not want to answer my letter. I don't belive it,do you? Given that the head replied to my email:

he can do whatever he wants.
I HAVE SPENT FAR TOO MUCH TIME ON THIS!!
send contract to 10 Northburgh Street, London, EC1V OAT, U.K.

I AM NOT CORRESPONDING ANY MORE ON THIS ISSUE.
PUBLISH THE BOOK, OR DON'T PUBLISH IT - IT IS UP TO YOU.

ALL CORRESPONDENCE FROM NOW ON MUST BE VIA NORMAL POST TO LONDON.

I AM NOT REPLYING TO ANY MORE EMAILS!!!!!

So would any1 please tell me if I was wrong in printing the book and then send him a new contract? I just don't get my mistake, given that my book was under publication, and we reached an agreement via email.

[John McKenna]

I can believe it.

The answers are self evident.

You were wrong in your initial approach - that resulted in the publisher, here in London, washing his hands of the whole affair - like Pontius Pilate is said to have done - and telling you, indirectly, to publish and be damned as the Duke of Wellington once recommended.

That could make you something of a latter-day saint, or a persistently annoying sinner.

Which is it to be?

(Please do not complain about this answer - you asked for it.)

[John McKenna]

And, if you get any other answers it will probably only be because I answered and therefore a nexus will form to oppose me.

[Michael Farthing]

What shall be call it? It has to have a name

[Clive Blackburn]

Soheil, does this mean that the matter has now been brought to a conclusion (satisfactory or otherwise) and you will no longer be posting about it?

[John McKenna]

If you want to be known as a saint and not a sinner take care how you answer that one, Soheil.

There's a saying that a perp will revisit the crime scene.

[Brian Towers]

There's a saying that a perp will revisit the crime scene.

That sounds like a reworking of Proverbs 26:11.
Or perhaps a reworking of a previous reworking by Kipling:

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

[John McKenna]

Ah, Brian, but Mr Kipling was so much longer then. I'm shorter than him now.

A short friendy proverbial warning not just to Brian but to all itinerant arbiters -

"He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears." (Proverbs 26:17)

(Hope all this is not going over Soheil's head.)

[Michael Farthing]

You are quoting from one of the Holy books of Islam

[John McKenna]

What shall we call it? It has to have a name

Not necessarily, since those in it would prefer not
to be identified as a group. However, once the possible existence of such a grouping is postulated a name will be attached.

In this instance you could call it the anti-John McKenna nexus then quickly and quietly drop 'McKenna' so it becomes the anti-John nexus. (That way John Foley can be included thereby killing at least two birds..). And, since the hitherto unamed group will most probably contain a few Johns they can be cited as living proof that there is no such thing as the anti-John nexus....

[soheil_hooshdaran]

I can believe it.

The answers are self evident.

You were wrong in your initial approach - that resulted in the publisher, here in London, washing his hands of the whole affair - like Pontius Pilate is said to have done - and telling you, indirectly, to publish and be damned as the Duke of Wellington once recommended.

That could make you something of a latter-day saint, or a persistently annoying sinner.

Which is it to be?

(Please do not complain about this answer - you asked for it.)

How were I wrong?

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Soheil, does this mean that the matter has now been brought to a conclusion (satisfactory or otherwise) and you will no longer be posting about it?

No, why did you think so?
It just means I am running out of first printing and want to get permission for another printing.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

I can believe it.

The answers are self evident.

You were wrong in your initial approach

(Please do not complain about this answer - you asked for it.)

I appreciate helps.
But where was I wrong is baffling me.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

He was says "
I AM NOT CORRESPONDING ANY MORE ON THIS ISSUE"
and once says:
"ALL CORRESPONDENCE FROM NOW ON MUST BE VIA NORMAL POST TO LONDON."

very confusing Brit. I can only sympathize with PM Mosaddegh. There is a good reason all fingers are pointed to Brits...

[John McKenna]

He's pleading both innocence AND mitigating circumstances!! What shall I do Mr. McGarrett??

Don't book 'im yet, Danno. Let's hear if he has anything else to add that incriminates him.

What if he hasn't?

Then we must let him go, Danno.