If someone addressed questions directly to you on the newsgroup and I
presumed to answer them for you, I'm sure you would scream bloody
murder. You wouldn't be saying "how collegial of Mr. Richardson to
speak for me." No one would believe your words if you said such a dumb
thing.
This is not one colleague at a time, at one's choosing either. Mardi
(not me) addressed an issue which directly involved comments I
previously posted on the newsgroup. Her post was civil, polite and
collegial. I chose to reply to her post. My response consisted of
three questions for her to answer in order to assist her in solving her
own problem.
I could have chosen other methods of response (including a direct
answer), or no response at all. But, I believe Mardi is an intelligent
person who doesn't need me to resolve the apparent discrepancies. I
chose to ask her three questions so that she could focus on the issues
at hand and sort through the problem areas. To date she has made a
good effort. She has determined that the Philip de Gay who Mr. Crouch
mentioned in his article was born well before 1144/5. So far, so good.
Between the two families, the Gay and Marshal families are ancestral to
virtually everyone who posts here on the newsgroup with English noble
ancestry. The connection between Aline (de Gay) Basset and her
grandmother, Aline (Pipard) (le Marshal) de Gay, is real and can be
proven. Yet, strangely, to my knowledge no one has presented any
evidence for such a connection here on the newsgroup. It's also been
overlooked by Complete Peerage, Keats-Rohan, Crouch, the Victoria
County Histories, local histories, etc. - ALL the published
authorities.
Why do you think this is so?
That is a private question for you, Peter. Answer it, if you can.
Myself, I believe you lack the appropriate background and training in
English records in this period to answer the question. I know I'm
being a bit blunt here, Peter. But we're starting to get to the heart
of
the issue.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Mind you I think that addressing a note to a person and
then putting it on a newsgroup for the world and its oyster
to digest is a bit of a nonsense in the first place. It all
gives the impression of a cozy clique and discourages
others from participating.
This is a reasonable point. However, a few regular posters make a
cheery habit of addressing by name everyone who has taken part in the
thread to which they are contributing, as in a circular letter, and
this is surely just a harmless idiosyncrasy that wouldn't deter
others from joining the discussion.
Telling people that they may not even post a reply, or in what
chronological order they may offer opinions, is a different matter.
This is "collegial" behaviour, apparently, by the supreme &
relentless authority on that subject. One colleague at a time, of his
choosing....
Peter Stewart