Rosemary Jefferies, if you are out there: If you had wanted to see a copy of my text, all you had to do was ask the author, I'd have gladly sent it to you and been quite happy to consider your many comments. To try however to go above my head and that of the volume's editor to force through changes in my unpublished text just a few days before publication really is not on. I've already wasted several hours dealing with the editor's and then publishers' queries raised by your attempts to trash my work. The volume's editor has I believe already told you why, after consultation with the author, he is not changing the text in the way you'd like, and having been shown by them and considered all your comments and criticisms, I am still perfectly comfortable with the work being published in the form it currently is. The fact that I mistyped your name in the bibliography has however been corrected, thanks for pointing that out.
If you are unhappy with the situation, please go ahead and after the book comes out publish somewhere your comments, and then I will answer your criticisms there.
Many people were involved in the project since 1965, and there must be many views about what it was and what it was not. There are indeed several things about the project, and my text about it, that are highly controversial. Sadly I do not think your clandestine review has identified the important ones. I look forward however to learning other reactions to my brief assessment of the complex history of this project from people involved in the events I describe and evaluate, though I would prefer them to reach by more normal channels of academic exchange of views.
I put this reply here as I felt you deserved a reply and I do not have your email address, nor could I find anything much about you in the internet to enable me to find current contact details. But I bet if you'd thought of asking me for a copy of the text, and had Googled my name you'd have come up with more than one way of contacting me - like through this blog, which I would have thought was pretty obvious is that of the same Paul Barford.
UPDATE: It seems Roman pottery specialists can locate this blog after all. Within an hour I received a signal that she'd read it, but not from her. So it beats me why when she wanted to read a copy of my unpublished text, she could not find it then to contact me to ask properly. Oh well. Since she works on Roman finds, I bet she supports the PAS.