this is the review,it clearly states,this review was written by James O Donnell for froots.
and it was clearly explained to you at the time that a] this was a pseudonym and that b] it never appeared in fRoots in the first place in spite of the claim on the website. This is old ground that has been covered and explained. Can we please move on?

Then there was:-
I am still waiting for an apology,and as you very well know I was right.
Well, the matter has been satisfactorily elucidated and carefully explained by a number of postings above, if anyone has the tolerence to read through them. After more than one hundred posts, we are still getting things like.....

the Froots editor got very angry with me for daring to send in a post criticising a review ,accused me publicly of hallucinating,and other similiar remarks.
the editor of Froots is well able to explain what happened,but has not even had the decency to apologise.

and then
I never accused Ian of writing the review,I criticised his magazine for publishing it.
I owe no one an apology,every person has a right to write about a review to the editor of any magazine /newspaper.
But, as has been explained to you, this never actually appeared in fRoots and the person who actually wrote it under a pseudonym is yet another person that you have one of your pointless public disputes with.

and then
this review quite clearly states[and still did so last night]that it first appeared in Froots.
But as was carefully explained to you at the time, this review did not appear in fRoots (though I have established that it was submitted but never published). The website that claims that it was published in that magazine was wrong at the time and it still wrong.

and then again

I was led to believe it appeared in froots[as anyone else would have been].because it stated it appeared in froots
But early on in the postings at the time, it was explained to you that what you were led to believe was wrong, yet you persisted in accusing the editor of printing a review that you did not approve of in spite of the fact that you had been told that the review never appeared. (I hope all Mudcat users are reading this carefully and taking notes, because there will be exam questions on this alongside Explain the reasons for the outbreak of the First World War which are slightly less complicated)

and then
James O'Donnell James O'Driscoll
Neither person exists. One is one of your very common mistakes, the other as was explained to you at the time is a pseudonym. You know who it really is because this has been explained to you, but I won't name him here because it is another of the people that you don't like, so you will probably end up being rude about him here.

Well, there are others that I could quote, but I feel that I have made my point. However, I would like the person who wrote all of the italicised quotations above to consider three things:-
1] It is possible to have discussions and move points forward without reconsidering the same points repeatedly.
2] Some things would be best left to be resolved by private email rather than public forum outrage
3] There are people who use Mudcat who do not subscribe to the Dickmiles-o-centric Universe Theory and would like to see a broader discussion taking place on a public internet group such as this.