I don't know if this has ever come up before on the blog, I didn't look at all the blog's archive. I have a lot of books about EF. I wonder if other fans know the existence of this book written by D. Bramov in 2005. It is a psychoanalytical biography. I found it quite exciting, interesting and definitely intriguing, no photos though. Worth looking into for sure.
— Don Jan
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 12:30 pm
I never heard of D. Bramov… Only of B. Dramov. By the way, we are still waiting for your photo, plus why don't you show us an excerpt from your screenplay? We have had excerpts from great screenplays before and a beautiful poem, so… go ahead!
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Terry,
Slight slip up on the keyboard, old boy. This things is playing tricks, need to change it. You are right. It is actually B. Dramov. Well done, you are very observant indeed. Nothing with a bit of accuracy, right?
Not sure what photo you mean, And referring to my screenplay. Well, that is only for the priviliged few I am afraid. Still working and polishing for perfection. I will be pitching it shortly through the right channels.
By the way, you could write to me personally should you wish to do so venting your feelings, (I got the drift on your comment earlier). My email address is mentioned on the article with the genuine EF case, which is now sold.
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Jan, you know which photo – a photo of you of course – showing your mustache and waring a shirt to see the embroidered “Famous Question Mark” on the shirt pocket as you said that you wear. We are still waiting! I am sure you read the postings! Now be a sport!
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Hi Terry;
I have the book and it is a very good book, most enjoyable reading!
It is very nice to have you on board and your postings are enjoyed by us! We look forward to your future participation!
All the best,
Tina
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Dear Tina,
Within a few days, as I am moving house, (never again, but I must say it is the best diet in the world!) and got stuff all over the place! I make a compromise here, I will post the Qmark photo that I have on most of my shirts (about 50) plus on my T-shirts (less amount). I am not a bragger, (contrary to popular believe!). I am real, I do own EF personal things, carefully collected, not just anything without any research. I would say with pure confidence that I am ONE of the most ferocious and loyal fans of EF, I know there is a whole binch of them, I know that! Got a GSOH also, but this is not the place to find out!
However, I am not going to display a photo of myself, not necessary. This is not a dating website (haha!). I think it is too personal, sorry. Please, always wonder. No further comment on that, I live by my own strict terms, please appreciate this little fact Somehow I am sure you'll understand. I contribute what I can, when I can. Like to help out, love to be a serious contributor to David's site. I am glad he initiated this to be honest. Always happy to find out new things through fellow fans. Let's concentrate on our hero here, I think that is quite important.
By the way, Tina, I could send you some nude pictures of my cats. I am a real catman, you see. Saved many lives, give them a good life. At one stage I had 19! Now down to 8. Love them all. Real gems they are. Saludos, Jan
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Thank you Tina, you are a very kind lady and your words are very appreciated. Thanks for making clear what I meant. As for the screenplay, Jan, I would like to know who the “privileged few” are…
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Terry,
I am no one special, just like the rest. No need to hide behind false images and stuck-up attitudes, Life is only once! It is only due to personal circumstances and bad experience in the past, that one needs to be cautious in life and understand what people can do to people (let alone what they can do to innocent animals (naturally this leaves the door open to discussions, debates etc. which should be avoided on this blog, plenty of blogs dedicated to that!). Therefore, not being bigheaded, although slightly arrogant I admit that, that I have my inner sanctum, not many people get to know me very well, and perhaps in a future biography all that comes crystal clear withour a doubt. All proceeds then should go to animal charity which is so much needed, believe you me. I did my bit in life, did more favours for people and don't expect anything back. Like to be self-reliant and very independent. I rather have one friend I can rely on 8 days a week and 25 hours a day, than having loads of “friends” who just turn out to be contacts and nothing else. If you need them for some reason, they don't want to know, too busy with heir own lives. So, therefore the wording “priviliged few” means a lot to me.
I had my own ups and down, don't you worry. It is quite transparent that we are here to suffer on this planet somehow. (Perhaps because women come from Venus after all and no discussions intended here, please!). So, we should do things well in life , I will always like animals, they have the right to live here too, for at least one merit only, they just can't lie!!
I am open to discuss things, maybe better privately.
Cordial cheerios from Spain.
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Along with “The Girls, Errol Flynn, And Me”, possibly the worst of books on our hero, though at least it doesn't defame him like other unmentionable publications.
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Good to know, so I was right not to purchase it until now. Why is it so bad?
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
I'm shaking my head in sheer disbelief that anyone, let alone Errol Flynn enthusiasts, could like anything about the awful Dramov book. I bought the book as soon as I came across it on Amazon and hadn't got through the first chapter before I felt like I had been well and truly ripped off. It really is an apalling read in my view; I mean come on, this is a book that describes 'Santa Fe Trail' as 'film noir'. There are no footnotes, no documentation; the author just throws forward some half-baked theories; my immediate thought that was that the book was written by the moronic owner of the Flynn Yahoo group. It was littered with spelling errors, terrible grammar and sentences that just didn't make sense
It's been a long time since I read the book but recall that the author said that he could describe Flynn in ONE word 'ladies-man'.
I may be in the minority here but I would advise anyone giving any thought to buying this book to forget it, it really isn't worth the paper it was printed on.
best wishes,
Brian.
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Well said, Brian. You took the barbs right outta me mouth.
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Thanks, Brian, I always wondered if I should buy it or not, but now I won't for sure. I am very suspicious of these psychoanalytical works who claim to have analysed Errol's psyche! There is a German author who claimed the same, but in my opinion, you cannot succeed in pressing such a complex man like Errol into any psycho scheme if you did not talk to him yourself because you just don't know when he told “the truth”. Thanks again, Brian!
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Terry! Could you send me an email at
za************@gm***.com
…? I have something to ask you! :) and don't have your email address?
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 9:10 pm
As you move house, I have a wonderful suggestion for unloading your Flynn stuff while maintaining your non-profit ideal: give it all to me!
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Hi Brian;
Are you not a little harsh on this book? I am quite sure it will not win the Purlitzer Prize, but it is a nice book mostly in defense of Errol. Are you sure we talking about the same book.
If so, I am sure you know that we people have a very unique feature, we are all as different as thumb prints and therefore have different likes and dislikes and they are also in the greatest variety.
It just so happens that I liked the book.
I read not so good books about Errol (excluding Higgins and Bret) and I think I disliked one of them quite a bit – I think it was Michael Freedland's book “The two Lives of Errol Flynn”, (have to double check) he wouldn't leave a good hair on Errol. The book is full of the author's personal damnation of Errol. Dramov's book gives the account from the perspective of a Neurologist and is not condemning Errol Flynn as there is nothing to condemn him about. You take him as he was or one leaves him.
For instance you are saying “this is a book that describes 'Santa Fe Trail' as 'film noir' ” – so what – it is a black and white film. We are not all film experts to define “film noir”
You say – no footnotes, no documentations – is that only which makes a good book?
You further state, “the author just throws forward some half-baked theories.” As B. Dramov is a doctor of neurology the book is written in this sense – nothing half-baked about that. We are not neurologists or are there any amongst us?
This statement of yours “It was (it should be “IS” as the book still exists) littered with spelling errors, terrible grammar and sentences that just didn't make sense”.
I myself being a person who never had an English lesson in her life most likely cannot be the judge of that, but I am capable of noticing them if they are so obvious as you say. The sentence structure, again I am no judge, but if they where so bad how come that I (ignorant) could make them out perfectly well; furthermore it made sense to me.
In addition you say “the author said that he could describe Flynn in ONE word 'ladies-man'. now here I beg to differ.
This is a short synopsis of the Author's Note in which the “ladies-man” comes up.
Author's Notes
Where does one begin to write of such complex man? Nowadays, he is easily dismissed with a casual remark, 'Ah, Errol Flynn – he was a womanizer' or 'Errol Flynn, wasn't he the one that was involved in a rape trial?' or 'Errol Flynn, the degenerate playboy.' Few people remember Errol Flynn. Those movie buffs that do recall him, remember that he was in good swashbuckler movies and that he was Robin Hood. Then the banter, the jokes come on, and he is dismissed with one word, 'lady's man' or 'play-boy'. In this modern slogan-world, it was amazing how one's entire life can so readily be epitomized in a single word.
It is also true, to paraphrase Shakespeare.s Julius Caesar, that the evil that men do lives after them but the good is often buried with their bones. So it is with Errol Flynn: that which is recalled of him and attracts is the sensational, the gossip, the innuendo, the fabrications, the embellishments, the half-truth – not the real substance. Furthermore, death becomes fair grounds for any ruthless biographer, in which fabricated facts become reality; and since there is no legal recourse, there is no way in which the record is set straight.
I doubt there are very few actors who have been as maligned as Errol Flynn, and so poorly understood.
As I do not wish to copy the complete book – further down in this paragraph it is stated, which I think gives a clear inside of what the book is all about.
The author: My interpretation is from a totally different perspective: it is an attempt to understand Errol Flynn from his point of view.
This should give our readers a slight idea where this author is coming from.
Brian, maybe you would be interested in a slight correction of your thinking mode as you refer to the author as “HE”, did you ever thought that it could be “SHE”?
I think – not staking my life on it, but the author is Dr. Bonita Dramov – Neurologist. But what ever – B. Dramov is a Flynndefender like Tina and that is good enough for me!
Btw. Flynndefender is one of my names.
There it is – sorry to say Brian, but I do recommend this book to any Errol friend anytime!
Best regards,
Tina
P.S. Please don't correct my English I know it is faulty! Give it a smile!
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Hear Hear!
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 11:00 pm
We're listening……..
Anonymous
March 19, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Hi Inga;
You removed your magazine post, I therefore have to send you this one. I posted a magazine cover (can't see the date) on the magazine tab, have a look – this one is 250 pixels. What do you think – big enough? Should we make it 275 or 300? I counted mine I have about 80 – they just accumulated over the years!
Anonymous
March 20, 2011 at 12:03 am
Jan, thank you for your explanations I understand fully your position and that is fine. I am also glad that you are an ardent Flynn fan.
Anonymous
March 20, 2011 at 6:58 am
Tina my magazine post is still there! Have a look at the left under the list of titles. And it is in the correct category. 300 pix is maybe better? Take care!
Anonymous
March 20, 2011 at 11:21 am
Hi Tina,
No, I really don't feel I was harsh on the book at all. To be honest if I had the time, (and if I was better qualified) I would write a review of the book over at Amazon to attempt to put off any prospective buyers. But that would mean reading the thing again and that is just too painful a thought.
I paid £12.99+p&p for the book which, in my opinion, is/was a disgrace. Of course I fully recognise your right to like the book Tina but as I stated truthfully in my post I was shaking my head in disbelief that anyone could get anything from it. To me it was 'unreadable' in every single capacity. You may look upon it as harsh but I raised the issue of the 'Santa Fe Trail' description as 'film noir' as an overview of the whole tone and feel of the book.
I found the book beyond amateurish and no matter what the authors distinguished background; the book says it all. For an author and so-called Errol Flynn expert to describe SFT as 'noir'… well… where does the reader go after that?
Did you really feel it was a professionally done psycho-analytical assessment of Flynn? I think I'll stick to my own feelings that these were some very poorly reaearched half-baked theories, lumped together in book form with little thought of structure, grammar or even sense and thrown out there for us suckers at £12.99 a copy.
Reading your post I do start to see where we differ in our outlook. I really enjoyed the Freedland book, it was the second book I ever read on Flynn (after MWWW) and I read that book, as a young boy, until it fell apart. I felt it gave a very good account of Flynn (even though I do seem to recall it didnt have footnotes either). Interestingly, I recall Karl Holmberg (one of the very finest Flynn guys out there) saying that it was his favourite Flynn book (pre-McNulty)
Tina, I couldn't recall the exact context of the 'ladys man' quote but thankfully you have put it out there.
'Then the banter, the jokes come on, and he is dismissed with one word, 'lady's man' or 'play-boy'
I 'm sure after you look at the above you will see my point. If the above was just a one-off error I could have forgiven it but the book is littered with that kind of stuff so I don't feel I was being 'pedantic.
I looked into who the author was when the book was released. Seem to recall that I came to the impression that it was written by a Boris Dramov, can't recall where I got that information from but that was my impression at the time. But whether it be man or woman what I did find a little odd was that the author seemed to shroud himself/herself in mystery.
Tina, I just can't buy into this theory of looking more favourably on a book merely because it defends Flynn. That maybe enough for you but it isn't for me.
I loved Donati's book because it defended the lies with the truth, with meticulously researched truth; that is what matters to me.
Despite your liking of the book Tina (which I wholly respect) I am going to stand my corner on this one. This book deserves to be consigned to the nearest bin and I really hope any people reading this debate will steer clear of it. It is a 'shocker'!!
best wishes,
Brian.
Anonymous
March 20, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Whooh, Tina… as I haven't read the book, I cannot contribute to the discussion, just little with a definition of Film Noir, and I would say that this definition would not hold for “Santa Fe Trail” as the protagonist does not have a “major character flaw” – unless we see John Brown as the protagonist and not Jeb Stuart… Still, Tina, sorry for contradicting, I would like to repeat my doubts about the neurologist approach. The author(ess) never spoke to Errol and then how can he/she make up any theories about his psyche? Any serious psychatrist would have to talk to a patient to judge about his state of mind, and I bet this would have been very difficult with Errol, too. We never know, in all he said in his life, what he really meant and thought, so I would say it is very difficult to base a good analysis upon this…
Anonymous
March 21, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Should I ever decide to do that, there will be a long waiting list. By the way, I am working on that Gib document, don't worry, Bobby. I am curious why you haven't found out anything yet on Fleming, after all, you do live in California, close to all that information that might be there. Please!!
Anonymous
March 21, 2011 at 5:08 pm
But there isn't a long list now and you're giving things away.
Gib document?
Fleming?
“Bobby”?
Anonymous
March 21, 2011 at 6:43 pm
It seems to be really difficult to find out something about the author. Neither Boris nor Bonita showed any useful results. Now I came of with Borina – . When you read this post, you can see at the bottom that she “is known as Dr. B. Dramov”. One useful indication. The little that is said on amazon.com seems to prove the find. You can also find two reviews there which go into your direction, Brian.
Anonymous
March 22, 2011 at 7:17 am
Dear Inga and mostly dear Brian!
I hope Brian receives this post too as I do not want to post it twice, and anybody who berates the book of B. Dramov. Who ever wishes to cut me to pieces it's o.k. with me – I can take it – I have good straight shoulders and I am able to defend myself and Errol in the same swoop!
I am very sorry Brian and Inga and I hope you can forgive me my mistake I made when posting the author’s name as Bonita when I actually meant Borina. Bonita was a memory slip!
It is Borina Dramov, which I found on the Internet as a neurologist in San Francisco when I first researched the author a year or so ago, because I was as curious as you when I bought the book quite some time ago and thought as stated by me in my post that she most likely could be the author. Btw, it is in its second print since 2005!
But whatever the critiques about this book may be and I don't care if it is the Almighty himself, He or She is an Errol Flynn defender, which is a lot better to read then the criticizing authors who berate him left front and center and never leaving a good hair on his head. Quite often I read a book about Errol where the author puts his own criticism, slant, judgment etc. of him in his book! And I can name them! Even Robert Matzen stated his sex life in quite descriptive words. I shook my head for a moment and thought, “Did he actually see it – I doubt very much, so how can he say something like that”, but I didn't condemn Robert or the book because of it. It is a very good book and I love it. So the author has a little sexual fantasy of his own – so what – its human!
There is something like an author or poet's prerogative and we just have to live with it on a – take it or leave it basis. Then there is another thought that comes to my mind – how do we know if B. Dramov if a woman, never met Errol, who are we to judge that? Maybe she in an old lady now and had the pleasure of meeting him, after all Patrice is still alive – right – and let me tell you there are others still alive who had the pleasure to know him. Who knows, maybe if she, that is if the writer is a lady, was an old girl friend and felt compelled to write this book to defend Errol against the slanderous published accusations? Plus, it is also good to know that this book seems to be the only book this author has ever written, I wonder why? Just for fun? Is the author a professional writer, I doubt very much! When being a professional writer – more books are written and published than one, as writing is their living – right! In this case I think the author had only one motive to defend Errol Flynn! And I think that is worth for every Flynn fan to support.
I could and we all could say something about books we read if we wished to do so and I read plenty of them in my lifetime. Please tell me what good would that do to you, to me or for that matter to anybody. Authors will write and readers will read! That was at the beginning of books when people could read and that will be to the end until books are published. If authors would take head of individual’s likes and dislikes no books ever would be published out of fear of rejection. Is spreading fear such a good thing? Would that help the cause of satisfying each and every one of us? Are we saying only books that satisfy each and every one of us may be published? Does that not sound a little dictatorial? Having grown up in a dictatorial regime – no thank you – I appreciate the freedom of choice of many kinds much too much!
What is good and what is bad is exactly like as often quoted “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and so is most everything depending on the individual’s interpretation and taste! With this I am not saying that we, the readers, should accept everything and anything – definitely not slanderous authors like Charles Higham and David Bret, but if an authentic author in his/her good will wishes to publish a book, particularly when comes to the defense of an accused person who is unable to defend himself, as it seems here to be the case, I think we should be grateful for it. This book was mainly written to defend Errol against Charles Higham’s and David Bret's accusations and quite clearly stated at the beginning of the book. Maybe it may not be the best book or defense this author offers, on the other hand did any of us write something that would have helped Errol when Charles Higham or David Bret lowered the boom and defamed him? No – and that is not intended as an accusation just a mere fact of life, which states we were unable to furbish this service, we could not come to his defense in any way shape or form. So why is a person judged for trying to do something none of us did? Now I ask – who are we? Bystanders – who do what? Yes, you are right – nothing, because we were or we are unable to do anything!
Please don’t let us bystanders to be judges to those who at least try to right – the wrong. Please correct me if there are members amongst us who did produce public defense. I think Errol would stand behind me in this thought, as he was most often a defender for the weak, and how weak can you get being buried in a grave? I think any help one can get would be quite appreciated. I think his family members are appreciative of any help to clear Errol’s name of slanderous accusations.
No doubt Errol had his faults! I ask you who hasn’t? Everybody and I mean everybody is made out of good and bad just like Errol was. What right has anybody to criticize him at all? He did what he could, survival is an important factor in anybody’s live, he was handed overnight stardom totally unprepared, had a mother-like wife, being naive as he was to a very large extent he lived his live the best as he could and as HE knew how. He wanted joy in his life – who doesn’t! The most envy comes from people who have no idea how to enjoy life and that what he had and for that he was envied for. At least when he was free of work he really was free, but only because he had a gift and the guts for it to do so. Most of us don't have the gumption to do what we would like to do – he had! We envy – we prosecute! Are we judge and jury? Are we the Almighty?
Please don’t let’s forget the most important item in this equitation – all of it was for our entertainment, our enjoyment – that is the reason we are all here on this blog. We had the fun of seeing him, reading about him including with all the embellishments good, bad or indifferent, we who soaked it up and still do to this day. It was he who gave us the good times! But in this most unfair equation we forgot that this poor devil also had a right to live a life on its own and live his life the way he wanted to and for which he had to pay so bitterly – not us – we had the good times – it was him who paid bitterly for all his mistakes without a murmur or complaint! Now who is the hero? Does anybody think he enjoyed the negative accompaniments of his stardom? He learned the hard way that it was a byproduct of fame. Does anybody think Errol was a robot? He had no feelings, nothing could hurt him, let me tell you he was a most sensitive man and very, very often hurt extremely deeply. He said, “I’ve had a hell of a lot of fun and I’ve enjoyed every minute of it.” Yeah – was here the actor speaking or the man himself? He certainly enjoyed life, but EVERY minute of it? For that he suffered much too much!
Did he not admit himself “…I wept more than most people would ever suspect.” What does that say to you? Can you feel it? And so do I right now thinking that a Flynn defender would be put down for no good reason – this makes me very sad – very sad indeed!
Anonymous
March 22, 2011 at 7:47 am
Dear Robert;
What are BARBS? Please educate me “bloody foreigner” as I would be referred to in some counties!
Anonymous
March 22, 2011 at 9:46 am
Hi Inga,
Thanks for the links to the reviews at Amazon, the last time I looked there were none at all. The comments are pretty fair although one of the reviewers gives it 3 stars, which is three too many for me.
best wishes,
Brian.
Anonymous
March 22, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Hi Brian;
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me.
I have written a reply to you and Inga, but it is held up in the spam filter.
As I said before, we are all entitled to our opinions and it just so happens that this time we are not on the same page. Who knows there maybe many other subjects we would readily agree upon, but not on this one. We may have better luck next time and I am sure there will be a next time.
All the very best to you,
Tina
Anonymous
March 22, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Sure thing, Tina: barbs are sharp-pointed weapons. Or a group of women all named Barbara.
Cheers!
Anonymous
March 22, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Hi Robert;
Thank you for the explanation. I get it – also like barbed wire!
Anonymous
March 23, 2011 at 7:44 am
Very nice, Tina, I think you should write a book to defend Errol – it would be one of the greatest!
Anonymous
March 23, 2011 at 9:49 am
Hi Tina,
I would hate for you to think that I was trying to 'cut you to pieces' at all; we were merely discussing the Dramov book and offering differing views. I think you may have misinterpretated the 'barbs' comment, it was an attack on the book and not on you, or even your liking for it (I find your liking of the book difficult to understand but each to their own). I'm a gentleman at the end of the day and the thought of verbally cutting or attacking anyone on here would never enter my mind. I just state my own point of view and am quite willing to see others – I'm here to learn as much as anyone else is.
I do, however, feel this conversation is going off-the-radar a little, there isn't a call here for going down the dictorial or freedom of speech route. The book is out there, it has been published, therefore it is open to discussion – which is what we are doing. The author had the right to self-publish the book, I have the right to dislike it just as you have the right to like it.
I will just try and make my position crystal clear. I dislike the book with a passion, I thought it truly, truly awful. I couldn't care if Dramov is a man or a woman or if he/she knew Flynn, bedded Flynn, drank with Flynn, partied with Flynn, lived with Flynn. Dramov could even be the most ardent and devoted Flynn defender in the world – I still dislike the book. I paid £12.99+p&p for it so I reserve my right to say it.
I think that covers the first half of your post, the rest… well, I really don't want to get into all that but this blog would be a pretty dull place if we had no right to criticise Flynn – there is a lot to criticise and once someone is open to that then, in my opinion, the Flynn story becomes even more fascinating.
best wishes,
Brian.
Anonymous
March 24, 2011 at 12:59 am
Hi Brian;
You never cut me to pieces my dear, I didn't mean to give you this impression. I just said – if somebody wishes to do so, as I will stand up for Errol any given time. A long time ago, long before I found the blog, I was seeking out websites who spoke badly of Errol and I used the name “Flynndefender.” You see I am standing with the “sword” in my hand – ha,ha,ha. I even got Wikipedia to remove a slanderous sentence of Errol's in their Hermann Erben posting.
Anyway may that all as it is – you hate the book for authorship – I like the book because it defends Errol! My post to you was merely expressing my opinions and my feelings and for you maybe to see the book in a different light.
To give a book publicly a bad review could prevent other people from buying it and that would not be a good idea as for example – take Inga – she now will not purchase the book – and other people may do the same thing. Now, have you ever thought there might be a few more people out there who would like the book – for instance like me. Surely, I am not the only one who likes the book.
Thank goodness I never read the critiques! I buy, I read, I keep and I recycle the ones I do not like, except the one I put in the trash, because recycling may have contaminated the recycling plant. Books are written to be read – good, bad or indifferent.
Critiques are made to influence people, I don't want to be influenced by anybody, I like to make up my own mind and if I spend money on a bad purchase that is the price I pay to get educated.
Anyway I had fun in our different points of views in this discussion.
Take care and have fun!
Tina
Anonymous
March 24, 2011 at 1:18 am
Hi Inga;
Thank you, but no thank you!
In my head I have a book to get it on paper is another cup of tea!
But thank you for your confidence in me.
Take care,
Tina
Anonymous
March 24, 2011 at 9:10 am
Hi Tina,
That is a huge relief, things can come across in the wrong way on a blog and my vitriol was aimed solely at the book.
best wishes,
Brian.
Anonymous
March 24, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Hi Brian;
Please be assured it did not come across in a wrong way, I fully understood that we are only discussing a book and I tried only for you to think about the book in a more benevolent way. You see I am a compassionate person, can't help myself. I like to see something good in everything and there are – in everything bad there is also good.
Take care,
Tina