Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflo

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflo

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 nov 2004 19:31:01

In a message dated 11/20/2004 10:09:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Just to conclude with good news regarding this specific relationship, a
contemporary document has recently been uncovered that reveals the true
paternity of Robert Holand, as well as the precise details of his death
and the fate of his holdings. Further it confirms the connection with
the Kendall family of Cornwall (the route of the claimed descents from
him) and in so doing proves contemporary proof of a link in a potential
royal descent for those who can prove linkage to this family.


What document?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 nov 2004 14:37:10

Todd Farmerie particularly enjoys employing this "peek a boo" style of
Genealogy. It's a CHARACTER ISSUE with him.

I understand that he is being scrupulous about not stealing someone
else's thunder -- and that is perfectly appropriate and ethical.

But he should NOT even have revealed the existence of the document -- if
he was then going to play "peek a boo" Genealogy with Richardson. What
he did is childish, not ethical and respectable -- but adolescent
"gotcha" at its worst.

David Greene's remarks are quite different and perfectly ethical and
respectable. He simply told us two reviews would be appearing -- and
that one would be in his journal.

So the two cases are quite different and not commensurate at all.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Bryant Smith" <skip31@racsa.co.cr> wrote in message
news:a9b2ce02.0411280641.6e86ba92@posting.google.com...

| Good question. The same question was raised by Richardson in another
| thread and Farmerie's reply was that since he was not the discoverer
| of the document it was not for him to identify it.
| There are, obviously, first-class and second-class citizens in this
| newsgroup. Some are "inside" and privy to Really Super Secrets like
| the answer to "what document?" while others are not. The Discoverer
| of the Document has not come forward: Why not? Is he writing an
| article and jealous of his "priority?"
| There, again, the editor of TAG tells us that there will be two
| reviews of
| Richardson's book by real "experts," one in his mag and another in
| another
| journal, but that the names of these "experts" must be withheld.
| Well, folks, I have news for you: Medieval genealogy is a very small
| pond and anyone who feels a need to be a big fish in it is to be
| pitied.
|
|
| WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message
news:<1a7.2b6ef25d.2ed0e50b@aol.com>...
| > In a message dated 11/20/2004 10:09:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
| > farmerie@interfold.com writes:
| >
| > > Just to conclude with good news regarding this specific
relationship, a
| > > contemporary document has recently been uncovered that reveals the
true
| > > paternity of Robert Holand, as well as the precise details of his
death
| > > and the fate of his holdings. Further it confirms the connection
with
| > > the Kendall family of Cornwall (the route of the claimed descents
from
| > > him) and in so doing proves contemporary proof of a link in a
potential
| > > royal descent for those who can prove linkage to this family.
| > >
| >
| > What document?

Bryant Smith

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Bryant Smith » 28 nov 2004 15:41:33

Good question. The same question was raised by Richardson in another
thread and Farmerie's reply was that since he was not the discoverer
of the document it was not for him to identify it.
There are, obviously, first-class and second-class citizens in this
newsgroup. Some are "inside" and privy to Really Super Secrets like
the answer to "what document?" while others are not. The Discoverer
of the Document has not come forward: Why not? Is he writing an
article and jealous of his "priority?"
There, again, the editor of TAG tells us that there will be two
reviews of
Richardson's book by real "experts," one in his mag and another in
another
journal, but that the names of these "experts" must be withheld.
Well, folks, I have news for you: Medieval genealogy is a very small
pond and anyone who feels a need to be a big fish in it is to be
pitied.


WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:<1a7.2b6ef25d.2ed0e50b@aol.com>...
In a message dated 11/20/2004 10:09:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Just to conclude with good news regarding this specific relationship, a
contemporary document has recently been uncovered that reveals the true
paternity of Robert Holand, as well as the precise details of his death
and the fate of his holdings. Further it confirms the connection with
the Kendall family of Cornwall (the route of the claimed descents from
him) and in so doing proves contemporary proof of a link in a potential
royal descent for those who can prove linkage to this family.


What document?

Leo van de Pas

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 28 nov 2004 20:51:02

Dear Bryant,

I am as anxious as you to hear what document and which father; but, whether
we like it or not, we have to be patient. We have to be glad we know we have
something to look forward to. Whoever is in possession of the information
may well, quite rightly, not want his/her name bandied around as then he/she
may be overwhelmed by people making contact and that could delay
publication.

How long did Douglas Richardson promise his book would be out soon? And
soon, and soon, and soon turned into over two years. And this waiting even
caused despair for an elderly person who expressed this on gen-med. What is
good enough for the "first class" Douglas Richardson, is good enough for
that other person, as otherwise that other person would be turned into
second class.

The same applies to the reviewers, to review properly Douglas Richardson's
book is an enormous task and why should we know who is doing it? What if one
or the other wants to pull out? He/she can't because it has been announced
he/she is doing it. Or, again, in all eagerness other people may start
sending messages to the reviewers. Leave them in peace is my request.

I know patience may not be easy but wait is all we can do.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryant Smith" <skip31@racsa.co.cr>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower
Descendant


Good question. The same question was raised by Richardson in another
thread and Farmerie's reply was that since he was not the discoverer
of the document it was not for him to identify it.
There are, obviously, first-class and second-class citizens in this
newsgroup. Some are "inside" and privy to Really Super Secrets like
the answer to "what document?" while others are not. The Discoverer
of the Document has not come forward: Why not? Is he writing an
article and jealous of his "priority?"
There, again, the editor of TAG tells us that there will be two
reviews of
Richardson's book by real "experts," one in his mag and another in
another
journal, but that the names of these "experts" must be withheld.
Well, folks, I have news for you: Medieval genealogy is a very small
pond and anyone who feels a need to be a big fish in it is to be
pitied.


WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:<1a7.2b6ef25d.2ed0e50b@aol.com>...
In a message dated 11/20/2004 10:09:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Just to conclude with good news regarding this specific relationship,
a
contemporary document has recently been uncovered that reveals the
true
paternity of Robert Holand, as well as the precise details of his
death
and the fate of his holdings. Further it confirms the connection with
the Kendall family of Cornwall (the route of the claimed descents from
him) and in so doing proves contemporary proof of a link in a
potential
royal descent for those who can prove linkage to this family.


What document?



Peter Stewart

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 nov 2004 22:37:14

Bryant Smith wrote:
Good question. The same question was raised by Richardson in another
thread and Farmerie's reply was that since he was not the discoverer
of the document it was not for him to identify it.
There are, obviously, first-class and second-class citizens in this
newsgroup. Some are "inside" and privy to Really Super Secrets like
the answer to "what document?" while others are not. The Discoverer
of the Document has not come forward: Why not? Is he writing an
article and jealous of his "priority?"
There, again, the editor of TAG tells us that there will be two
reviews of
Richardson's book by real "experts," one in his mag and another in
another
journal, but that the names of these "experts" must be withheld.
Well, folks, I have news for you: Medieval genealogy is a very small
pond and anyone who feels a need to be a big fish in it is to be
pitied.


This is completely unwarranted, and unfair to Todd.

First, there is no evidence that information has been shared - by him or
anyone else - with some SGM members and not with the whole newsgroup.

Secondly, we have no way of knowing that the "Discoverer of the
Document" even knows about this thread or monitors the newsgroup.

Thirdly, hinting at jealousy is ludicrous: it is perfectly normal
scholarly behaviour, as well as being ethical & responsible on Todd's
part, to advise interested parties that some apparently incontrovertible
proof has been found of a point under discussion. This can save people
from going off on a wild goose chase, expending energy on physical
searching or and perhaps credibility on speculation, when the answer to
a puzzle is already known.

Fourthly, participating on SGM does not mean that someone has given up
the right to consult with or be consulted by fellow researchers off-list
- that is simply the process whereby scholars try to ensure that
material is not published prematurely or with avoidable errors added.

The point of Todd's review was that Richardson had not lived up to his
own declared standard in at least one section of his book. No blame was
attached to his not knowing about the newly-discovered document.

And naming such finds "Really Super Secrets" rather gives away where the
emotional motivations sit in this controversy. Get a grip - it's just an
issue of the paternity of a medieval person, not the key to cold fusion.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 nov 2004 00:59:40

Todd Farmerie is fogging the issues here.

Smoke & Mirrors....

As I stated before, his case and that of David Greene are quite
dissimilar.

Farmerie was trying to tease and embarrass Richardson -- whilst Greene
clearly had no such motives.

Until we SEE this document that Farmerie SAYS exists and can evaluate
its MERIT for ourselves ---- all bets are off as to what it MEANS.

SO, simply ANNOUNCING that this document EXISTS -- without further
details -- was designed to intimidate Richardson and play "Peek A Boo
Genealogy" ---- "I know something you don't, but I'm not going to tell
you about it."

Puerile Mediocre Academic Gamesmanship.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:41aa704b@news.ColoState.EDU...

| Bryant Smith wrote:

| > Good question. The same question was raised by Richardson in
another
| > thread and Farmerie's reply was that since he was not the discoverer
| > of the document it was not for him to identify it.
|
| Sorry - if you would prefer not to know that the solution does exist
| (without knowing the details), they try to banish it from your mind.
In
| fact, just tell yourself that I was not being truthful - that no such
| document exists, if it would make you feel better.
|
| > There are, obviously, first-class and second-class citizens in this
| > newsgroup. Some
|
| One, in this case, and my knowledge has nothing to do with my
| participation in this newsgroup.
|
| > are "inside" and privy to Really Super Secrets like
| > the answer to "what document?" while others are not.
|
| It is a longstanding principle of ethical scholarship that the
| researcher who makes a discovery has the right of disclosure - of
| determining at what time and in what form the discovery is announced -
| all the more so since there are scholars who are not ethical, and are
| likely to claim the discovery as their own. Who cares?, you might
ask.
| While it is a hobby for most (such as myself), it is an occupation
for
| some, and their ability to feed themselves is at stake. They have no
| responsibility toward you, only to their clients and themselves.
| Likewise, there are non-professional forms of recognition that are of
| value (if only psychologically) to the amateur and professional
| researcher alike, and the same ethical considerations apply to both.
|
| > There, again, the editor of TAG tells us that there will be two
| > reviews of
| > Richardson's book by real "experts," one in his mag and another in
| > another
| > journal, but that the names of these "experts" must be withheld.
|
| This is common in all publishing. To release the name of a reviewer
in
| advance would allow pressure to be placed on her or him. Were I to
know
| who was reviewing a book for TAG, I could try to influence the review
| (or simply harass the reviewer by sending an email virus or
something).
| It is to protect the integrity of the process that the names of
| reviewers are usually withheld until the time of publication.
|
| Like it or not, as much as you may want to know these things, that's
the
| way it is.
|
| taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 nov 2004 01:29:16

Right!

Whereas the Todd Farmerie case is quite different ---- and problematic.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0Evqd.51718$K7.8769@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| David Greene has quite appropriately posted the extra information that
| the review in TAG will "probably appear in the October or January
| issue". There can be nothing ethically amiss with his telling the
| newsgroup so.
|
| Peter Stewart

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 29 nov 2004 01:43:00

Bryant Smith wrote:
Good question. The same question was raised by Richardson in another
thread and Farmerie's reply was that since he was not the discoverer
of the document it was not for him to identify it.

Sorry - if you would prefer not to know that the solution does exist
(without knowing the details), they try to banish it from your mind. In
fact, just tell yourself that I was not being truthful - that no such
document exists, if it would make you feel better.

There are, obviously, first-class and second-class citizens in this
newsgroup. Some

One, in this case, and my knowledge has nothing to do with my
participation in this newsgroup.

are "inside" and privy to Really Super Secrets like
the answer to "what document?" while others are not.

It is a longstanding principle of ethical scholarship that the
researcher who makes a discovery has the right of disclosure - of
determining at what time and in what form the discovery is announced -
all the more so since there are scholars who are not ethical, and are
likely to claim the discovery as their own. Who cares?, you might ask.
While it is a hobby for most (such as myself), it is an occupation for
some, and their ability to feed themselves is at stake. They have no
responsibility toward you, only to their clients and themselves.
Likewise, there are non-professional forms of recognition that are of
value (if only psychologically) to the amateur and professional
researcher alike, and the same ethical considerations apply to both.

There, again, the editor of TAG tells us that there will be two
reviews of
Richardson's book by real "experts," one in his mag and another in
another
journal, but that the names of these "experts" must be withheld.

This is common in all publishing. To release the name of a reviewer in
advance would allow pressure to be placed on her or him. Were I to know
who was reviewing a book for TAG, I could try to influence the review
(or simply harass the reviewer by sending an email virus or something).
It is to protect the integrity of the process that the names of
reviewers are usually withheld until the time of publication.

Like it or not, as much as you may want to know these things, that's the
way it is.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 nov 2004 03:16:28

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

Bryant Smith wrote:

<snip>

There, again, the editor of TAG tells us that there will be two
reviews of
Richardson's book by real "experts," one in his mag and another in
another
journal, but that the names of these "experts" must be withheld.


This is common in all publishing. To release the name of a reviewer in
advance would allow pressure to be placed on her or him. Were I to know
who was reviewing a book for TAG, I could try to influence the review
(or simply harass the reviewer by sending an email virus or something).
It is to protect the integrity of the process that the names of
reviewers are usually withheld until the time of publication.

Another problem with divulging the names of reviewers in advance of
publication is that the editors would be placed in a quite invidious
posiiton if for any reason they were not satisfied later that the
articles were up to standard, whether positive, negative or neutral
about the book itself. In some cases there may be a need for delay, for
revision or even for a new commission.

It's predictable enough that TAG and NEHGR will publish reviews of PA3,
and it goes without saying that these will be written by people whom the
editors consider to be experts.

David Greene has quite appropriately posted the extra information that
the review in TAG will "probably appear in the October or January
issue". There can be nothing ethically amiss with his telling the
newsgroup so.

Peter Stewart

Bryant Smith

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Bryant Smith » 29 nov 2004 12:47:05

Yes.
I apologize to David Greene. His remark was not out of order.
But
I do not believe for a minute that TAF just happened upon what may be
one of
the most vunlerable lines in Richardson't book.
I have no opinion of the overall quality of the book and am not
qualified to
have such an opinion.
I believe TAF took some considerable pains to select his slice for
review, and
that he did so out of personal animus and spite toward Richardson.
I think DSH is spot-on accusing TAF of using the alleged new find
(which if I
read correctly vndicates Richardson's line if not his scholarship) to
"tease"
Richardson but I don't think "tease" is a strong enough word.
TAF prattles about the ethics of priority but how "ethical" was it,
how fair to
the discoverer if there is one, to jump the gun with vague
foreshadows?
My basic premise stands: The jealous dog-in-the-manger hoarding by
academics of their little secrets is pitiable.


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<7Ovqd.279$LL3.3356@eagle.america.net>...
Right!

Whereas the Todd Farmerie case is quite different ---- and problematic.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0Evqd.51718$K7.8769@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| David Greene has quite appropriately posted the extra information that
| the review in TAG will "probably appear in the October or January
| issue". There can be nothing ethically amiss with his telling the
| newsgroup so.
|
| Peter Stewart

Leo van de Pas

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 nov 2004 13:51:02

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryant Smith" <skip31@racsa.co.cr>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower
Descendant


Yes.
I apologize to David Greene. His remark was not out of order.
But
I do not believe for a minute that TAF just happened upon what may be
one of
the most vunlerable lines in Richardson't book.
I have no opinion of the overall quality of the book and am not
qualified to
have such an opinion.
=== This sounds Double Dutch to me-------TAF just happened upon what may be

one of the most vulnerable lines but I (Bryan Smith) have no opinion of the
overall quality of the book and am not qualified to have such an opinion.

If he has no qualification to have an opinion, how can Bryan Smith almost in
the same breath judge/opinionate that TAF has found "the most vulnerable
line"? Either Bryan Smith is qualified to judge or he is not. It would just
be wonderful if TAF had found the weakest line, we should be grateful, as
then a little faith could be restored into the overal quality of DR's work.
But the "real" judges are still out, TAF just gave us one sample, how many
more will be revealed?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

John Brandon

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 nov 2004 18:11:56

My basic premise stands: The jealous dog-in-the-manger hoarding by
academics of their little secrets is pitiable.

One wouldn't mind if the "secret" truly remained a secret, but hinting
and teasing about something for years without delivering is an
unfortunate (and rather sadistic) technique of some genealogists.

Bryant Smith

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Bryant Smith » 29 nov 2004 21:17:03

Dear Leo:
Anything can be made to sound like "Double Dutch" if you cut it in
half. My post was no doubt poorly organized and not sufficiently
clear, but the point raised in the part you excised was not that I
judge the line criticised by TAF to be one of the most vulnerable in
the book, but that I believe that TAF judged it so after looking not
just for one with which he was familiar, but for a familiar one that
he could use to put Richardson in the worst [pssible light. Yes that
does mean that the line in question may be one of the most vulnerable,
but not because of my judgment, rather because of TAF's.
Get it?
Got it
Good!
Next let's learn how to spell my name.
Warm regards
BryanT

leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote in message news:<000c01c4d611$eb5ac8c0$c3b4fea9@email>...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryant Smith" <skip31@racsa.co.cr
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower
Descendant


Yes.
I apologize to David Greene. His remark was not out of order.
But
I do not believe for a minute that TAF just happened upon what may be
one of
the most vunlerable lines in Richardson't book.
I have no opinion of the overall quality of the book and am not
qualified to
have such an opinion.
=== This sounds Double Dutch to me-------TAF just happened upon what may be
one of the most vulnerable lines but I (Bryan Smith) have no opinion of the
overall quality of the book and am not qualified to have such an opinion.

If he has no qualification to have an opinion, how can Bryan Smith almost in
the same breath judge/opinionate that TAF has found "the most vulnerable
line"? Either Bryan Smith is qualified to judge or he is not. It would just
be wonderful if TAF had found the weakest line, we should be grateful, as
then a little faith could be restored into the overal quality of DR's work.
But the "real" judges are still out, TAF just gave us one sample, how many
more will be revealed?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Peter Stewart

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 nov 2004 21:25:36

Bryant Smith wrote:

<snip>

The jealous dog-in-the-manger hoarding by
academics of their little secrets is pitiable.

Another reason that scholars consult with each other in private before
publishing such finds is that there may be someone else whose work would
especially benefit from the new information, and whose forthcoming
publication might be the most appropriate place for it to appear in
print for the first time.

You are overlooking this - sometimes discoveries are shared in this way,
with no personal interest whatsoever, with only acknowledgement expected
in return as well as reciprocal courtesy on another occasion.

Dougals Richardson has placed himself outside such interchanges between
genealogists, due to his own repeated offenses.

Peter Stewart

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 29 nov 2004 21:29:31

Bryant Smith wrote:

But
I do not believe for a minute that TAF just happened upon what may be
one of
the most vunlerable lines in Richardson't book.

I already explained this. I picked the line specifically, because I
already knew what the published data does and does not say. Thus I
would not have to ask what the basis was for the conclusion reached
(invariably answered by 'go look it up yourself'), and I would not have
to take great pains to exclude the superfluous citations.

I have no opinion of the overall quality of the book and am not
qualified to
have such an opinion.

Noted.

I believe TAF took some considerable pains to select his slice for
review, and
that he did so out of personal animus and spite toward Richardson.

You are wrong in that belief.

I think DSH is spot-on accusing TAF of using the alleged new find
(which if I
read correctly vndicates Richardson's line if not his scholarship)

His scholarship was all that was at issue - that is why cheating on one
line impeaches the entire work - it doesn't matter if the line is
correct or not, it indicates a flawed process. It demonstrates that the
line (and hence how many others?) fails to meet the standard he himself
professes to have held and places all into question.

My basic premise stands: The jealous dog-in-the-manger hoarding by
academics of their little secrets is pitiable.

Do you have any genealogy to contribute here? Tell you what - why don't
you pick a line in the book and evaluate it. Come back to us with your
findings.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 nov 2004 21:39:13

Dear Bryant ~

Yes, I believe you are correct.

When the dust settles (and it will settle), I believe Mr. Farmerie's
document will show that I have correctly identified Robert Holand's
parentage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

skip31@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote in message news:<a9b2ce02.0411290347.4ec09ac5@posting.google.com>...
Yes.
I apologize to David Greene. His remark was not out of order.
But
I do not believe for a minute that TAF just happened upon what may be
one of
the most vunlerable lines in Richardson't book.
I have no opinion of the overall quality of the book and am not
qualified to
have such an opinion.
I believe TAF took some considerable pains to select his slice for
review, and
that he did so out of personal animus and spite toward Richardson.
I think DSH is spot-on accusing TAF of using the alleged new find
(which if I
read correctly vndicates Richardson's line if not his scholarship) to
"tease"
Richardson but I don't think "tease" is a strong enough word.
TAF prattles about the ethics of priority but how "ethical" was it,
how fair to
the discoverer if there is one, to jump the gun with vague
foreshadows?
My basic premise stands: The jealous dog-in-the-manger hoarding by
academics of their little secrets is pitiable.

Leo van de Pas

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 nov 2004 21:51:02

I seem to remember that TAF maintained he choose that line because he was
familiar with it. I doubt he poured over (i.e. wasted his time) to check
which one could be the worst.
Any chain is as strong as the weakest link, if that line was the weakest
link, it snapped and allowed us to wonder about all the other entries where,
apparently, sources mentioned do not support the statement they suppose to
support.

You say that you are not qualified to judge DR's book, well, nor am I. And
why? Because of the overwhelming sources mentioned and you have to be able
to double check to see its relevance. The trust, for me, in his book has
gone. Even before reading reviews by knowledgeable people I think it is
safer to consult other works first.

By the way, I did not cut your remarks in half, I joined two together.
Maintaining TAF had found the worst line (how can you judge that) and that
you were not qualified to judge the book. Seems a contradiction to
me----Double Dutch.
Best Wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryant Smith" <skip31@racsa.co.cr>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower
Descendant


Dear Leo:
Anything can be made to sound like "Double Dutch" if you cut it in
half. My post was no doubt poorly organized and not sufficiently
clear, but the point raised in the part you excised was not that I
judge the line criticised by TAF to be one of the most vulnerable in
the book, but that I believe that TAF judged it so after looking not
just for one with which he was familiar, but for a familiar one that
he could use to put Richardson in the worst [pssible light. Yes that
does mean that the line in question may be one of the most vulnerable,
but not because of my judgment, rather because of TAF's.
Get it?
Got it
Good!
Next let's learn how to spell my name.
Warm regards
BryanT

leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote in message
news:<000c01c4d611$eb5ac8c0$c3b4fea9@email>...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryant Smith" <skip31@racsa.co.cr
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry:
Mayflower
Descendant


Yes.
I apologize to David Greene. His remark was not out of order.
But
I do not believe for a minute that TAF just happened upon what may be
one of
the most vunlerable lines in Richardson't book.
I have no opinion of the overall quality of the book and am not
qualified to
have such an opinion.
=== This sounds Double Dutch to me-------TAF just happened upon what may
be
one of the most vulnerable lines but I (Bryan Smith) have no opinion of
the
overall quality of the book and am not qualified to have such an
opinion.

If he has no qualification to have an opinion, how can Bryan Smith
almost in
the same breath judge/opinionate that TAF has found "the most vulnerable
line"? Either Bryan Smith is qualified to judge or he is not. It would
just
be wonderful if TAF had found the weakest line, we should be grateful,
as
then a little faith could be restored into the overal quality of DR's
work.
But the "real" judges are still out, TAF just gave us one sample, how
many
more will be revealed?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


John Higgins

Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Ma

Legg inn av John Higgins » 30 nov 2004 07:21:02

You're conveniently missing the point - yet again.

The issue is NOT whether you, or Todd, has correctly identified Robert
Holand's parentage, but rather the BASIS for that identification. Your book
cited a whole list of sources which purported to support this
identification, but Todd has demonstrated that the sources either directly
contradict the conclusion or at best do not support it. Instead of refuting
Todd's issues on your sources, you've now told us that the identification is
based on chronology - which you fail to note in your book for this line.

I agree with Todd's comment of a few days ago that "a reasonable conclusion
based on chronology is NOT the same as a documented descent". The line in
question may well be right, but to pass it off as a "documented descent"
based on the sources you cite is (to put it bluntly) dishonest.

Leo van de Pas commented a few days ago that "the feelings of security in
the work of Douglas Richardson continues to be undermined" and he wondered
if RPA/PA3 was to be grouped with Roderick Stuart's infamous Royalty for
Commoners. I wouldn't go that far, because I think RPA does have a lot of
good information and is for the most part accurate. But serious questions
about the reliability of RPA have certainly been raised and not answered
(except via personal attacks, slurs, red herrings and underwear allusions).
Accordingly my sense is that RPA should be used with considerable caution -
check out its sources as much as possible before you cite it as an
authority. This obviously is true for ANY genealogical work - but even more
so for something like RPA, which purports to be an authority in its field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower
Descendant


Dear Bryant ~

Yes, I believe you are correct.

When the dust settles (and it will settle), I believe Mr. Farmerie's
document will show that I have correctly identified Robert Holand's
parentage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

skip31@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote in message
news:<a9b2ce02.0411290347.4ec09ac5@posting.google.com>...
Yes.
I apologize to David Greene. His remark was not out of order.
But
I do not believe for a minute that TAF just happened upon what may be
one of
the most vunlerable lines in Richardson't book.
I have no opinion of the overall quality of the book and am not
qualified to
have such an opinion.
I believe TAF took some considerable pains to select his slice for
review, and
that he did so out of personal animus and spite toward Richardson.
I think DSH is spot-on accusing TAF of using the alleged new find
(which if I
read correctly vndicates Richardson's line if not his scholarship) to
"tease"
Richardson but I don't think "tease" is a strong enough word.
TAF prattles about the ethics of priority but how "ethical" was it,
how fair to
the discoverer if there is one, to jump the gun with vague
foreshadows?
My basic premise stands: The jealous dog-in-the-manger hoarding by
academics of their little secrets is pitiable.


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»