Couldn't help but notice some of the points raised in the previous postings, so I've tried to provide a few answers. Sorry if I sounds a bit terse, but to be honest some of the points raised seem a bit crass. Others are reasonable questions. If I've mistaken a bit good-natured teasing for ill-founded sarcasm then I apologise in advance � maybe I'm getting as bit touchy in my twilight years!
The length of my reply means I'll have to continue it in the following post...
�Yep All I saw was waffle, no images, no proof apart from some attention seeking dellusionists.�
You spelt delusionist wrong, but never mind � your proof of this is what, exactly? How do you know they were attention-seeking or delusional? Do you know the experients? Were you there? The experients can hardly be attention-seeking as they have consistently rebuffed all media contact. Perhaps you were talking about the authors, then. If so, how do you know that we were attention-seeking or delusional? Mind you, its pretty hard to write a controversial book without gaining attention, so you've got me there.
Actually, the Daily Mail was given a good number of images to use by our publisher but simply chose not to � I'm not sure why. We'd have preferred it if they had used some to illustrate the article, but at the end of the day its their paper and they have to use illustrations as they � and not we � see fit. Some of them are in the book.
�yeah, cant really offer an opinion without the film.�
Very true, and it will hopefully be released soon. We're currently negotiating with a major documentary maker.
�One minute it�s a doodle board, now it�s a message board�
I'm not sure what your issue is here or why this troubles you. They were one and the same article; you know, just like car/vehicle, flannel/facecloth, etc...
Cont:...