Jump to content

giconceptsjw

Members
  • Content Count

    310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.giconcepts.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    California, USA
  1. I wrote a book about the uniforms & equipment used by the Coast Guard in in WWII and there is a large chapter about the beach patrol in it. There are plenty of original photos showing the USCG mounted Shore Establishment riding western saddles with horns, civilian plaid horse blankets, cowboy bridles & tack, etc. To say "it was all surplus US Army cavalry tack" is not accurate. The original photos of western tack in use prove that not all of them had McClellan saddles & Army cavalry tack. Prints in the Sand is very good but the original uniforms & equipment used by the USCG & Shore Establishments are shown in more detail in my book; http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Equipment-Insignia-Submarine-Services/dp/0764329227/ref=sr_sp-btf_title_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376062516&sr=1-6&keywords=jeff+warner+us+navy
  2. Stringing telephone lines on palm trees "somewhere in the Pacific" for a WWII U.S. Navy book photoshoot.
  3. Me in a recreation of the 25th Division in Iraq for the TV series "Combat Zone".
  4. Ha, fair enough! I'll be watching you next week...
  5. I know this is a shameless plug but I will be featured in an interview on the TV show “Triggers; RPG’s” tonight at 7:00 PM PST (10:00 PM EST) on the Military Channel. Should be good for a laugh. It was a fun series to work on and of course blowing things up and getting paid for it is always nice. Here is a link to the Military Channel's website; http://military.discovery.com/tv-schedules....133110.41519.6 Jeff Warner www.giconcepts.com
  6. Sorry for the late response. I don’t have the time to visit this forum very often. I’ve always said from the day my first book went to print, I will personally buy back any of my books from anyone who is not happy with them. Contact me personally and I’ll pay you your original purchase price for any copies of my book, as long as they are in reasonably good condition. All you have to do is mail it to me. I’m not sure what Schiffer’s official return policy is, but I do believe they have a similar policy. In my own defense, I'll offer anyone my congratulations if they find mistakes in my books. Yes, there are a few and I'm the first to admit that. Anytime anyone finds something in them that doesn't make sense or appears to be incorrect, I’m always happy to address it. If something is pointed out as a question and not a statement and it’s sincere rather than mean spirited I’m happy to hear it. There were a number of layout and editing errors that went to print in the Aviation book. A clarification and errata list is listed on Amazon at this link. I’ve been reassured by literally everyone who has a copy that these errors are trivial and do not detract from the book; http://www.amazon.com/U-Navy-Uniforms-Worl...2666&sr=1-2 I am in no way offended or upset by criticism, as long as it's valid. For example, if someone said item X on page 123 is shown as a WWII item but wasn’t that item introduced in 1951? That is a legitimate question / criticism. If someone said, hey isn’t that the front of a 1989 Toyota Corolla in the background of your WWII recreation photo on page 456? Again, something like that would obviously be a glaring mistake. On the other hand, when people make ridiculous negative comments or criticize photos without reading the accompanying text and branding their dislikes as “my mistakes”, I just have to ignore it since comments like that don’t even rate a response. About the series of books in question, let's look at the statistics first; There are total of 6 volumes. Each book has between 500 and 1,200 photos each. In all, there are over 5,000 original and contemporary photos featured in the books. That's over 5,000 written captions for the photos alone. In volumes 4 and 5, the entire text and illustrations from the 1941 US Navy Uniform Regulations is included with all amendments up through 1947 inclusive. Additionally, several wartime Navy uniform and equipment catalogs are reprinted as well as original Navy Aviation equipment catalogs of the period. No one has ever compiled and published any of this before. Additionally, volumes 4 and 5 include the regulations on a CD Rom DVD inside each book which made them two of the first true "multi-media" documents ever published for international sale and distribution in 2005. The books represent 37 years of research and took 6 years to write, compile and submit for publishing. As the author I was nominated for a Nobel Prize for non-fiction literature (for the entire 6 volume series as one body of work) and have received personal commendations, congratulations, praise and recognition from former US Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. as well as former USMC Commandant Carl Mundy Jr. and US Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter. Additionally, I receive “fan” mail letters and e-mails almost weekly. My books are sold worldwide and are currently in the libraries of nearly every nautical and naval museum in the US and Europe. I honestly feel that people need to first think about where books like this come from. They don’t just appear in print by magic. Regardless if you love or hate my own books, first try to imagine the logistics and reality of a literary project like this; 1. Put your own personal social life on hold for 6 years. No trips or vacations, no family events, no wife, no kids. 2. Scout and book locations for photo shoots including WWII aircraft museums, ships, submarines and Naval bases. Pay rental fees for 1940’s vintage cars, aircraft and ships (hint, my bill was close to $50,000.00). 3. Hire live models to wear the uniforms for the photo shoots who look the part of a WWII Marine or sailor. 4. Book lodgings and accommodations in Washington DC so you can spend 4 weeks at the National Archives doing research and pulling photos. 5. Seek out all the top collectors in the world and get their help with your research and their permission to photograph their stuff. 6. Lastly, assemble your body of work and put it and yourself on the world stage. Even if you are the very best at what you’ve done, there will always be people who will criticize and spit on you for it. I can only speak from my own experience but writing books like this is a lot like serving in the military. I’m no Steven King so there’s no money in it for me. I’ll be lucky if I ever break even and that would take another 20 years to happen if I did. I put my own personal life on hold for years in favor of getting the job done. I saw that there was a lack of available information on the subject so I took on the job of providing that information. I was lucky to be published and now my books are my gift to the world, to anyone who is interested. Basically, I did all the work so you don’t have to. You have to be a very unselfish person to take on things like that. Still, I have no regrets. Before slinging mud on me and my work, man-up and take on the job yourself and do better. JW
  7. Thank you Owen. I have my doubts though. It's hard to take someone seriously when they can't even write a legible sentence.
  8. Wow, isn't that a little presumptuous of you? First, you don't know if there's enough interest in these books for a second printing? They have sold over 45,000 copies worldwide and counting. Second, I've made so many horrible mistakes that "we could help with some revisions"? Do you have any idea how condescending and offensive that comment is to me? JW
  9. • Ship's clerk insignia identified as "warrant yeoman." >>>>> Ship's Clerk was sometimes referred to in print as "Warrant Yeoman" during WWII. That’s a fact, not my mistake. • CWO's garrison cap shown with corps devices on both sides rather than the miniature commissioned officer device on the left. >>>>> Warrant officers wearing the same insignia on both sides of the garrison cap was the result of a misinterpretation of vague regulations at the time and was fairly common. The associated captions and text in the book explain all of that, you need to read them. • "Aviation general utility" identified as a petty officer rating. This is a well-known misconception arising from an error in the 1941 Uniform Regulations. >>>>> Aviation General Utility was a specialty badge and was also a petty officer rating. There are records that clearly indicate ratings in this specialty for 3C, 2C 1C and chief as well as original wartime photographs showing the Aviation General Utility petty officer rating badge being worn, although it was certainly something of a rarity. A collector who printed a guide to rating badges in the 80’s had never seen original pics of this rating so he concluded (with arrogance) that it could never have existed because he had never seen it. Old myths die hard. That’s a fact, not my mistake. • Ex-apprentice mark identified as being worn by former training-station apprentice petty officers. The mark was actually a remnant of the "Apprentice Boy" naval vocational training program of the late 1800s. >>>> The ex-apprentice square knot insignia was originally intended for sailors who had been "Apprentice Boys" as kids. The program was originally for 14 to 18 year olds and lasted from 1875 to 1904. That is true. However, this insignia was also worn by former training station apprentice petty officers. Please see page 267 of the uniform regulations. It states the ex-apprentice square knot insignia was to be worn by enlisted men who have held the rating of apprentice in the Navy. Sorry, but the original apprentice boys were not rated. Apprentice petty officers at training stations were rated, 3C, 2C, 1C and chief. Each apprentice petty officer rating badge also featured the same square knot as the specialty mark but was smaller in size in relation to a regular petty officer rating badge. Perhaps it was the result of a misunderstanding of the original wording of the regulation for this insignia. Perhaps it was only a localized occurrence, I don’t know. Regardless, the wording of the regulations does lead one to believe that former apprentice petty officers at training stations would be entitled to wear it. I’m sorry but you really can’t argue original photos of 19 year old sailors wearing the insignia on their uniforms in 1942 just below the V neck on their jumper. There are pics of original uniforms with it in the book as well. I’ve talked to veterans who also say yep, they did wear it like that. They even had their original WWII uniforms with it on the jumper. I’m sorry if this is something new to you or it’s too difficult for you to accept. It doesn’t change the facts about it. Post-war Chief Aviation Anti-submarine Warfare Technician rating badge identified as Aviation Machinist's Mate. >>>Ummm, the rating specialty is a bullion stylized propeller with wings on either side. It’s Aviation Machinist Mate. Maybe a clearer pic should have shown it better. I guess maybe I could see how someone would think that. • CPO shown wearing Service Dress Blue D (with bow tie), not authorized for chiefs till after the war. >>>>>This is a moot point and not my mistake. Look at the title of the book “U.S. Navy Uniforms and Insignia 1943–1946”. As amazing as it may seem, the book covers uniforms through 1946. The chief Dress Blue D uniform is shown on page 101. That uniform is clearly listed on page 259 of the uniform regulations provided with the book on CD. Pers letter 327-MEB dated May1946 authorized this uniform and it was amended to the 1941 regulations on February 26, 1947. The same book also includes other 1946-1947 uniforms on pages 282 through 288. What is the point of mentioning this? • Officers sword belts shown worn over the white coat and evening tailcoat. The only coat that the sword belt was worn "outside" was the blue dress frock coat. >>>>Sorry, you are dead wrong. You need to read the regulations. On page 5 you will see paragraph 2.2 which clearly lists the “full dress white uniform” and includes the “full dress sword belt”. Additionally, 2.4 also includes the white coat and full dress sword belt for the “dress white” uniform. 2.8 lists the undress white uniform and includes the undress sword belt. The regulations for the full dress sword belt state it is to be worn on the outside of all uniform coats. Only the undress sword belt could be worn under any coat. The full dress white and dress white uniforms both call for the full dress sword belt so it was worn on the outside of the coat. The undress whit uniform calls for the undress sword belt so it was worn under the white coat. • Shoulder boards shown worn on blue frock and evening coats. The only blue article worn with shoulder boards was the overcoat. >>>>>>Firstly, your terminology is wrong. They are not shoulder boards, they were called shoulder marks. Second, your statement is wrong. Page 43 in volume 5 shows an original photo of an officer wearing the frock coat with shoulder marks (boards). Page 248 in volume #2 clearly shows an original photo of officers wearing blue coats (not overcoats) with shoulder marks (boards). When the frock coat was worn without epaulets, this left the attachment loops on the coat exposed. This was considered unsightly by some so shoulder marks were worn in their place, when prescribed. Although not included specifically, they were not excluded either. This was common. Frock coats are shown in the books both with shoulder marks (volume 5, pages 43 and 44) and without ( volume 6, page 156). • Officers swords shown slung "backward," with the hilt forward and sloping to the rear; the hilt should be behind the hip, guard to the rear, and the scabbard sloping forward. >>>>>> You’re wrong. Original photos show officers wearing the sword with the guard facing both forward and backward. Regardless of what the regulations indicate, they were worn both ways up until 1941. Pages 36 and 41 in volume 5 show the sword being worn both ways, side by side in the same photos. That’s a fact, not my mistake. • Aide's aiguilette shown rigged near the collar with dress epaulettes, should be at the shoulder seam. >>>>>>>>>Sorry, they were worn that way. Look at the original photos. Not a mistake. • Turn-down shirt collars shown worn with evening dress coat, should be wing collars. >>>>>>>You’re wrong. Page 120, plate #18 in the 1941 uniform regulations clearly shows turn down collars worn for both mess and evening dress with the bow tie. Also there's almost nothing about Messman/Steward Branch uniforms, which are often overlooked. >>>>>>You’re wrong. Chapter 8 in volume 6 is devoted entirely to cooks, bakers, messmen and stewards. There are over 10 pages of those uniforms in there. BUT I have a lot of experience and reference material to guide me around the inaccuracies. >>>>>>>Apparently all of your experience and reference material hasn’t prevented you from making a fool of yourself on this forum and making totally incorrect, absurd statements that are flat out wrong. I’ve called you out on literally everything you’ve said and I’ve backed it up with references and direct quotes to the regulations.You can’t back up any of your statements at all. JW
  10. Just opposite the title page is a Sailor who pressed his trousers incorrectly (front, instead of side seam). >>>>It’s really funny to me that people are saying these books are “full of mistakes” and go on about how the pressed creases in the uniforms are not regulation. Sorry, they were pressed the wrong way during the war. Sailors wore them that way. I’m sorry but there it is. I also agree the swords in the photos are worn incorrectly, and oddly, the aiguillette in the reproduction photos are also worn incorrectly (see page 36 as an example). >>>>Again, I have to say “really”? Aiguillettes were worn attached to the uniform many different ways, both under the lapel and at the shoulder seam. Original pics show this. Also interestingly, since the title would include uniforms worn from 1943-1946, the requirement for the sword to be maintained by naval officers was abolished on 15 October 1942. The frock coat ensamble was also abolished as per ALNAV 93-40, and thus was not a required uniform in 1943 (that would discard 19 pages of the book...) >>>>This is totally out of context. Volume 4 is 1940 through 1942 and volume 5 is 1943 through 1946. The books are like that simply because everything in them would not fit in one volume. Frock coats and swords were included because they were frequently worn before the war, i.e. 1940. Apparently, you misunderstand the regulations. The REQUIREMENT for officers to possess swords, frock coats, etc. was abolished. Swords and frock coats were NOT abolished as wearable items by officers who already owned them. Please read the uniform regulations. In it, you will see that the frock coat, cocked hat, mess dress, swords, etc. were all carried on as current uniforms through 1945 for officers who already owned them. The text of the book also states the same. This is just empty criticism. Clearly, if I had included nothing about full dress uniforms and swords, I would be bashed for leaving them out. Since there is extensive coverage of them, I’m bashed for including them with the suggestion they are redundant. As I see it, with that attitude, I’m wrong no matter what I do. On page 125, there's a flat hat named to a H.H. EDMAN (his trousers are on page 168). It has the typical WW1 era checkered lining in it. Interestingly, Harold Henry Edman, service number 140-16-85, enlisted on 29 June 1918...and during WW2, he worked in the Armour and Co. Machine Shop in Chicago as a machinery repairman, since he was pushing 50 by the time WW2 ended. So, the hat's a nice one...but from WW1. Is there a chance that another HH Edman served in WW2? Sure, but I couldn't find another one with those initials alive during that period... >>>>Really? What is the point of this comment? The hat is shown to illustrate the inside lining of WWI and early WWII era flat hats. That’s what it is. The guy’s name in it has nothing what so ever to do with anything at all. I can’t believe someone would research the name in the hat and call it an error in my book because that individual happened to be in his late 40’s during WWII. This is really grasping at straws. JW
  11. many are put together and incorrect, such as the WW2 Gm2/c with the "Ex-Apprentice" knot. That program ended many years prior to WW2, and there would not have been any PO2s with that patch. Actually, by WW2 there were only three "Ex-Apprentices" left in the Navy, one CPO, an LCDR and a Warrant Officer. >>>> The ex-apprentice square knot insignia was originally intended for sailors who had been "Apprentice Boys" as kids. The program was originally for 14 to 18 year olds and lasted from 1875 to 1904. That is true. However, this insignia was also worn by former training station apprentice petty officers. Please see page 267 of the uniform regulations. It states the ex-apprentice square knot insignia was to be worn by enlisted men who have held the rating of apprentice in the Navy. Sorry, but the original apprentice boys were not rated. Apprentice petty officers at training stations were rated, 3C, 2C, 1C and chief. Each apprentice petty officer rating badge also featured the same square knot as the specialty mark but was smaller in size in relation to a regular petty officer rating badge. Perhaps it was the result of a misunderstanding of the original wording of the regulation for this insignia. Perhaps it was only a localized occurrence, I don’t know. Regardless, the wording of the regulations does lead one to believe that former apprentice petty officers at training stations would be entitled to wear it. I’m sorry but you really can’t argue original photos of 19 year old sailors wearing the insignia on their uniforms in 1942 just below the V neck on their jumper. There are pics of original uniforms with it in the book as well. I’ve talked to veterans who also say yep, they did wear it like that. They even had their original WWII uniforms with it on the jumper. I’m sorry if this is something new to you or it’s too difficult for you to accept. It doesn’t change the facts about it. Also, several photos show neckerchiefs rolled inside out. True, Sailors tied them with varrious styles of knots , but they were rolled correctly. Also, in almost all reproduced photos of blues and whites (enlisted), they have been pressed incorrectly, with the trousers having fore and aft creases like civilian trousers and the jumpers pressed right side out (strangely, the collars were pressed correctly, had to be a bit difficult to get that). >>>>>> Are you really trying to say that every sailor rolled his neckerchief perfectly during WWII? Once and for all time, I really wish I could put this across to people; uniforms were not always worn in strict accordance with regulations. Enlisted blue & white uniforms were pressed inside-out and right side-out. I realize the regulation way to press the uniform was inside out. The books also say this, very clearly, several times. You guys just have to get it in your head that it wasn't always done like that at the time. My father was in the navy during WWII and his jumpers were sometimes pressed THE WRONG WAY by civilian cleaners while he was on leave. Apparently some civilian cleaners didn’t know better. In any case, my dad wore them that way and the same thing happened to other sailors. Believe it or not, people made mistakes and wore their uniform incorrectly during WWII. I know it's difficult to grasp that concept but please just try. Saying something like "that isn't worn correctly" is not a legitimate criticism or valid complaint because it happened that way at the time. The recreations in my books are authentic to a fault. They recreate the way things were done at the time, mistakes and all. The captions even point out things being worn incorrectly or in conflict of then current regulations. Why is it so hard for people to get that?? Neckerchiefs were rolled & tied the wrong way, aiguillettes, rank, ribbons, and all types of insignia were worn incorrectly. Pointing these things out on original uniforms is not legitimate criticism, it’s just lame. It’s like criticizing a Battle of the Bugle recreation photo and saying “that guy has a beard and beards were specifically prohibited by army regulation XYZ so that photo is INCORRECT!!” Stop with the “it wasn’t worn that way” comments already. In every repor photo of officers wearing swords, they are backwards (hand guard to the front, drag of scabbard to the rear). Sadley, these photos are on the same page as originals showing the swords correctly carried. >>>>>> You’re wrong. Original photos show officers wearing the sword with the guard facing both forward and backward. Regardless of what the regulations indicate, they were worn both ways up until 1941. Pages 36 and 41 in volume 5 show the sword being worn both ways, side by side in the same photos. That’s a fact, not my mistake. To piggy back on the dungaree note, there are a pair of dungaree trousers with "VF-111" stenciled on the back (commonly done) However, VF-111 did not come into being until after 1949. >>>>The trousers are WWII and it isn’t disputed VF-111 wasn’t until 1949. They are still WWII era trousers and that’s why they are shown. They just happen to have a VF-111 mark on them. Is that really a huge glaring error in the book? Is it really even worth mentioning? There is a statement in the last volume which has a section about Signalmen where the author says that the red and yellow semaphore flags were used on ships and the blue and white flags were used on shore. Not only is this totally incorrect (it came straight from Wikipedia) but it was on the same page as an original photo of WW 2 Beach Master SM with the red and yellow sem flags (Retired Signalman here who was trained by WW 2 vet SMs) so I really picked up on that. >>>>The original intention of using different colored signal flags for use on land and sea is a fact, sorry. It dates from before WWI. Of course it wasn’t observed and both types were used on both land and sea in actual practice. The pic you’re talking about is shown to support that. It says that in the book. Were you a navy signalman in 1914? Are you really quoting wikipedia as a source of solid information? Some statements made by the author are just a bit off. He states that CPOs with no or few hashmarks were "Temporary Appointment". While this was true in some cases such as direct apointment from civilian life or some such, others were not. >>>>Why is this even being brought up? What you’re saying is written in the book that way. You’re quoting my text and agreeing with it yet you’re calling it out as “a bit off”? Oh yeah, and the jumper with the front zipper. That was a style of the late '60s. Kids were getting old jumpers from surplus stores or their dad and splitting them down the front for jackets. I lived in Omaha at the time, and kids were shoeing up to high school with these things on. I was shocked. Then, when the remembered my dad was retired Navy, kept hitting me up to get them one of his old jumpers so they could have a cool jacket like the, then, fashion trend. >>>>>WWII enlisted navy jumpers were tailor made and altered with zippers on the sides & front. Original pics show this without any doubt. It wasn't just a "1960's fashion trend". That’s a fact, not my mistake. JW
  12. In all respect for you Mr. Werner but your book about Navy aviation in WW2 is poor like hell. >>>>My name is Warner, not Werner. FYI, your spelling and grammar is poor like hell which makes your post difficult to decipher but I’ll try. You missed a lot of details and put totaly wrong stuff there like: SBD crew with: seat type parachute( AN type ) E-17 survival kit, Us navy aviator first aid kit and fiberglasses MKI knife sheath and MSA type C mask. >>>>I missed a lot of details? Well the book in question is 320 pages, 18 chapters and 1,200 photos and shows the entire aviation equipment item catalog, every Navy class A, working and flying uniform, close-up photos of original items, all related insignia, etc. What details were left out? Should the book have been 50,000 pages long to suit you? >>>>The SBD (Dauntless) crew are shown on pages 204 through 206. Neither of them are shown wearing survival kits, first aid kits, Mark I knives or Type C masks. You must be totally confused. Both the pilot and gunner are wearing original WWII U.S. Navy QAS seat-type parachute harnesses. The advantage of the QAS system was the parachute and survival/raft kit could be left in the plane. Once the flyer sat in the seat, they attached the parachute to the harness. They detached it again and left it in the plane when they got out. The photos are 100% correct. By the way, “AN” refers to Army/Navy stock numbers. Look at page 159 which shows the wartime Navy Class 83 catalog for parachutes. Check out all those A/N stock numbers as suitable replacements for the Navy equivalent. Sorry, but the Navy used lots of A/N stock number items as well as Army Air Force flying equipment in WWII. >>>>>Nothing wrong with E-17 survival kit. They were used in WWII. >>>>>Are you listing a Navy aviator first aid kit as my mistake? They are shown in original photos and listed in the original 1943 supply catalog? Really? >>>>>Mark I knives were widely used. The fiberglass scabbard replaced the leather one in 1943. There is motion picture footage of flyers wearing these in 1944 & 45. This is not a mistake. It’s pretty clear your references to my photos are mistaken. The same with Avenger crew: three person with MKI vest, Q.A.S. harrness + late war survival light and post war shark chaser? >>>>>Maybe you missed the 50 or so original photos showing flyers with QAS harnesses and Mark I life vests. Both the light and shark chaser are dated 1945. Nothing wrong with mixing late and early war flying equipment like that. LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL PHOTOS. It happened all the time. Not my mistake. You posted in book AAF stuff like Life vest with cemeted dye marker, Navy didnt used this type of dye marker or B-5 vest? >>>>Yes they did. B-5 also carried an A/N stock number which makes it an Army & Navy item. By 1945, the navy had replaced the Mark I and supplies of B-4’s were replaced by the B-5. Original pics prove this. AAF B-8 goggle or AN-H helmet? Navy pilots have their own helmet under AN6540 or AN6542 model or Flying M1944 goggle. >>>>>Navy flyers wore Army Air Force flying helmets and goggles under the combination A/N supply system. Try reading the catalog numbers and looking at the original pics in the book. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re just embarrassing yourself. Even I dont want say about flying gloves there? Post war gloves with black USN stamp? >>>>There were wartime manufacturers who put black “USN” stamps on gloves and others used silver. Sorry. Again, this is clearly shown in original wartime pics. Wrist compass which you put there is also post war with W.C.C. >>>>The compass is dated 1945. An identical one is shown in an original photo next to it. I dont know who put together this book but you showed there Q.A.S. parachute harrness and after that you posted Technical Order for " how to put parachute pack with raft kit" but there is a Q.A.C. pack not Q.A.S. >>>>Actually, the U.S. Navy “put that together” The instructions you’re referring to are original Navy, not my writing or pics. Every one who can read or know a little bit this subject can see what is that.`Sorry but this errors are a FACT.... >>>>Hate to rain on your parade but what you’ve written here can hardly be called fact. I’ve called you out on literally everything you posted. Some weeks ago I see your book about USN clothing 1943-1946. I dont know maybe Im wrong… >>>>You’ve just discredited yourself and everything you’ve written. “you don’t know and you may be wrong”? So you’re admittedly not sure of yourself, yet you blast my books on a public internet forum? Yes, I agree, you don’t know and you are very wrong. You’ve also mentioned writing your own book. By all means go ahead. However, please do yourself and your readers a favor first; learn how to form a complete sentence and write above the third-grade level. Nothing personal of course. JW
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.