| | I first took the liberty of changing the quotation, but I realise now I shouldn't have done it without checking first what is really written in that book. Does somebody have access to an actual copy? I doubt that this is found in any library... [[User:Ratfox|Ratfox]] 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | | I first took the liberty of changing the quotation, but I realise now I shouldn't have done it without checking first what is really written in that book. Does somebody have access to an actual copy? I doubt that this is found in any library... [[User:Ratfox|Ratfox]] 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
| | : Dramatic developments! The book of James Edwin Thorold Rogers is now available ''on the web'' thanks to Google books. The citation is correct. However, the Penny Cyclopaedia, also available on Google books, stated barely 39 years earlier that the sack is equivalent to 13 tods, not stones. Was the Penny Cyclopaedia right? Was James Edwin Thorold Rogers? The first prevailed, but who can tell what is the TRUTH anymore? Watch this space for more. [[User:Ratfox|Ratfox]] 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC) | | : Dramatic developments! The book of James Edwin Thorold Rogers is now available ''on the web'' thanks to Google books. The citation is correct. However, the Penny Cyclopaedia, also available on Google books, stated barely 39 years earlier that the sack is equivalent to 13 tods, not stones. Was the Penny Cyclopaedia right? Was James Edwin Thorold Rogers? The first prevailed, but who can tell what is the TRUTH anymore? Watch this space for more. [[User:Ratfox|Ratfox]] 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC) |
沒有留言:
張貼留言