By Richardson sending that silly message he only allowed to have his own
behaviour exposed. Talking about goose.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowered
Historiographical Standards
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Douglas they way you are twisting situations can only place
you amongst the tricksters. Or your logic could be out of kilter.
Hines : "there are many sources" if he says so he should be
able to quote, he has quoted some I think but those were faulty;
if you say something you should put up.
Douglas Richardson : asks Peter Stewart for sources. Asks!
Peter Stewart is not obliged to answer. You can ask till you are
blue in the face. In my opinion a totally different situation.
I agree and disagree, Leo (a perfectly comfortable situation that
doesn't involve any "mugwamp" contortions for either of us).
_If_ Richardson had been telling the truth, he would have a point - but
of course he isn't. He had every right to ask me to substantiate the
point I had made about "cognatus", and in my view I was obliged to
answer in order to sustain the alternative definition I had put
forward. And so I did, using the standard dictionary and providing what
must necessarily be a very rare example that stated precisely what I
had claimed. This came from Bede, a writer whose influence in later
centuries was vast, and the matter was further illuminated with another
"-in-law" meaning from no less than St Jerome's Bible, which had an
even greater influence.
By any reasonable standards of discourse, my point was more than
adequately proved. The fact that Richardson still won't accept and
acknowledge this only tells us something to his own discredit, not
mine.
Peter Stewart