Wednesday, 2 October 2013

Re Is it me post...for Phil

I am rather surprised and hurt by a comment left at the above post.So I have copied my reply here-
Read my post properly.Respect my lack of names being mentioned.I did not say "THE BOOK" was a set of rules nor thin!Who is questioning values?
A rather misplaced comment from you Phil,hurtful and undeserved.At least the other comment makers remained polite as with the tone of my post! Perhaps i have gone against the flow and been shot down for it...


  1. Tradgardmastare,

    Don't let his comments get to you. You have more important things to worry about at the moment. Just stay calm ... and get on with getting better and looking after your wife.

    All the best,


  2. Bit of a misread from Phil I think.

    No doubt the book to which he refers is a beautiful thing and with such a small print run has to be expensive.

    His very own CWJ showed what delights can be produced relatively cheaply.

    Chin up and have a cuppa.

  3. I think you went out of your way not to name names - or books , so I would not let it upset you if you can , Tony

  4. Rather surprised at that response to your post, Alan. He seems to have grabbed hold of the stick at the wrong end - in fact, he seems to have grabbed the wrong stick! Not sure at all how your post was mis-read, but there you go. Checking back on your original post, I see that my comment (letting off steam about the price of academic books, using Manchester University Press as an example) didn't appear. That's not the first time recently, either - the wonders of blogger! Hope things aren't too awful, Alan.

  5. I think Phil misinterpreted your comments about thin, over-priced rulebooks - with which I entirely agree! - as referring to the the £65 book which was too expensive for you to feel able to purchase it, when you were clearly refering to other publications by a certain company, and to the current trend in wargame rulebooks in general.
    Don't let it get to you. Regards, Arthur

  6. It seems that friend Phil was associated in some way with THE BOOK to which you were referring. If so, perhaps his feelings were a little hurt by your posting. That is understandable (if I am right about this) but the way the real world is - in the process of wholesale looting by powerful people firmly ensconced in ivory towers far from any touch with the real world - 65 quid - even 65 bucks - is a serious consideration for a lot of people.

    Prospective buyers have every right to question the price of the product on sale. And every right to walk away. And every right to enquire into the experiences of others. These days I rarely buy books, and price is one of the reasons. I can appreciate that writers and publishers get caught in the middle of rising costs and a falling market as the criminal classes running the planet erode the purchasing power of the potential market.

    Whatever country we are talking about - the UK, USA, or li'l ol' Kiwiland, I blame the bunch of thugs and hired assassins that calls itself a government. I mean you, David, Barack, and John!

  7. As far as I can see you expressed an interest in a book but did not commit to buy it. You then subsequently decided not to buy it. It's your money and your decision so where's the problem?

  8. Late to the party as usual, but I second Tim above. You merely stated you no longer wish to buy a book you had expressed interest in, and gave your reasons (better than not giving them). As for most wargamers having £65 of unpainted lead lying about....hmm, methinks of ivory towers . Never mind Alan, it's not worth getting cross about.

  9. Your original post (which I agree with) was a simple expression of your opinion. No need for Phil to be so arsey.

  10. Chin up Alan. It is ok to go against the flow and have a different opinion about something. If you don't feel like spending the money for the book, then it is no big deal.