The question was in reaction to the statement that there were the following
volumes (covering the alphabet)
Vol 1. starts with Androphagi
Vol 28 ends with Zymotic diseases
Then to ask plainly (without explanation) how many volumes are there, _is_
stupid.
In a situation like this, surely, the question should be explained by "I
believe there are annual books", _anything_ but, what was asked.
A says there are 28 volumes
B asks how many volumes are there?
The question in itself may not have been stupid, the phrasing certainly was.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "E. S. Caypatch" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: Britannica
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:21 +1100, Ken Ozanne
[email protected]> wrote:
Nat,
All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).
There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into
the
50s.
These are obviously the volumes that DSH was thinking of when he
wrote:
How many more volumes are there?
And certain uncharitable people thought it was a stupid question.
Ed
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message