to Peter Stewart
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
charlotte Smith
to Peter Stewart
I noticed that in your post today that you stated that
you hadn't heard of anyone who had seen or knew D.
Richardson. I don't know him personally, but I have
been to one of his lectures on genealogy at a
conference that the New england Society had. He gave a
couple of good talks and I did speak personally to him
about some genealogy at that time. He seemd very
knowledgable and was very pleasant personality. So now
you have heard of someone who has met him.
you hadn't heard of anyone who had seen or knew D.
Richardson. I don't know him personally, but I have
been to one of his lectures on genealogy at a
conference that the New england Society had. He gave a
couple of good talks and I did speak personally to him
about some genealogy at that time. He seemd very
knowledgable and was very pleasant personality. So now
you have heard of someone who has met him.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
Charlotte Smith wrote:
No, you misread my post.
I wrote that I had never "set eyes on" anyone who had met him, i.e.
have never personally encountered anyone who is acquainted with the
man.
Hearing and seeing are quite distinct faculties for me.
Peter Stewart
I noticed that in your post today that you stated that
you hadn't heard of anyone who had seen or knew D.
Richardson.
No, you misread my post.
I wrote that I had never "set eyes on" anyone who had met him, i.e.
have never personally encountered anyone who is acquainted with the
man.
Hearing and seeing are quite distinct faculties for me.
Peter Stewart
-
starbuck95
Re: to Peter Stewart
Hearing and seeing are quite distinct faculties for me.
Sometimes ...
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
I wrote:
John Brandon replied:
Once again, you are too gnomic for me - I haven't a clue what this
means.
Do you think I have hallucinations & can't even tell if these are
auditory or visual?
People here so often know more about what I think - or ought to think -
than I do, though by most accounts I express myself clearly enough.
Peter Stewart
Hearing and seeing are quite distinct faculties for me.
John Brandon replied:
Sometimes ...
Once again, you are too gnomic for me - I haven't a clue what this
means.
Do you think I have hallucinations & can't even tell if these are
auditory or visual?
People here so often know more about what I think - or ought to think -
than I do, though by most accounts I express myself clearly enough.
Peter Stewart
-
starbuck95
Re: to Peter Stewart
Oh, you know, the famous 'acquired' brain injury and all. Don't those
sorts of injuries sometimes induce synaesthesia?
sorts of injuries sometimes induce synaesthesia?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
You are the only one trying to make this "famous", and ought to be aware (if
you are not up to being ashamed) of your ludicrous spitefulness.
Why you care to harp on this is a mystery, when you have been corrected for
falsely trying to make out that I use it for an excuse. What could you
possibly know of the "type" of injury involved, except from the rum
authority of Spencer & that it came from a hard bang on the nut?
Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115211944.870155.65410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
you are not up to being ashamed) of your ludicrous spitefulness.
Why you care to harp on this is a mystery, when you have been corrected for
falsely trying to make out that I use it for an excuse. What could you
possibly know of the "type" of injury involved, except from the rum
authority of Spencer & that it came from a hard bang on the nut?
Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115211944.870155.65410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Oh, you know, the famous 'acquired' brain injury and all. Don't those
sorts of injuries sometimes induce synaesthesia?
-
starbuck95
Re: to Peter Stewart
You are the only one trying to make this "famous", and ought to be
aware (if
you are not up to being ashamed) of your ludicrous spitefulness.
It's not I, but rather DSH, who has made this famous (and rather funny)
on the newsgroup. And I would remind you of the "ludicrous
spitefulness" of your incessant commentary on Doug. (On second
thought, it doesn't rise to the level of "ludicrous spitefulness" --
it's more like "dull, petulant nagging").
-
Dynbach
Re: to Peter Stewart
Having read all the contents etc,
Isn't time that the pair of you either grow up and shake hands or just
bugger off!
The Black Night
"charlotte Smith" <charlotsmith@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:20050503060914.78468.qmail@web80310.mail.yahoo.com...
Isn't time that the pair of you either grow up and shake hands or just
bugger off!
The Black Night
"charlotte Smith" <charlotsmith@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:20050503060914.78468.qmail@web80310.mail.yahoo.com...
I noticed that in your post today that you stated that
you hadn't heard of anyone who had seen or knew D.
Richardson. I don't know him personally, but I have
been to one of his lectures on genealogy at a
conference that the New england Society had. He gave a
couple of good talks and I did speak personally to him
about some genealogy at that time. He seemd very
knowledgable and was very pleasant personality. So now
you have heard of someone who has met him.
-
Rick Eaton
Re: to Peter Stewart
"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net
Maybe a duel would settle it.
Maybe a duel would settle it.
You are the only one trying to make this "famous", and ought to be
aware (if
you are not up to being ashamed) of your ludicrous spitefulness.
It's not I, but rather DSH, who has made this famous (and rather funny)
on the newsgroup. And I would remind you of the "ludicrous
spitefulness" of your incessant commentary on Doug. (On second
thought, it doesn't rise to the level of "ludicrous spitefulness" --
it's more like "dull, petulant nagging").
-
starbuck95
Re: to Peter Stewart
Thanks, but of course I didn't literally want to know the answer.
-
Gordon Banks
Re: to Peter Stewart
The answer to that is no. Synesthesia probably comes from a failure to
fully separate sensory modalities during neonatal brain development
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 06:05 -0700, starbuck95 wrote:
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
fully separate sensory modalities during neonatal brain development
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 06:05 -0700, starbuck95 wrote:
Oh, you know, the famous 'acquired' brain injury and all. Don't those
sorts of injuries sometimes induce synaesthesia?
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: to Peter Stewart
Gordon Banks wrote:
That or LSD.
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 06:05 -0700, starbuck95 wrote:
Oh, you know, the famous 'acquired' brain injury and all. Don't those
sorts of injuries sometimes induce synaesthesia?
The answer to that is no. Synesthesia probably comes from a failure to
fully separate sensory modalities during neonatal brain development
That or LSD.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115214652.921345.182980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dull, indeed - more tedious for me than for a reader - but "petulant" is
special pleading on your part.
The fact as I see it is that Richardson is a phoney. Do you think he should
have a quota of free goes at imposing his falsehoods on SGM readers? Or are
you just one of the small crowd that "Ooohs" and "Aaahs" at the fine robes
of this naked emperor of scholarship, and can't bear to hear a voice telling
the truth about his misrepresentations?
How funny you find Spencer's fantasies about my health tells us more about
you than about him or me. He can't know what he is talking about (and that
never stopped him, of course) but you can't have any basis apart from malice
for laughing at what one stranger says of another.
Peter Stewart
news:1115214652.921345.182980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You are the only one trying to make this "famous", and ought to be
aware (if
you are not up to being ashamed) of your ludicrous spitefulness.
It's not I, but rather DSH, who has made this famous (and rather funny)
on the newsgroup. And I would remind you of the "ludicrous
spitefulness" of your incessant commentary on Doug. (On second
thought, it doesn't rise to the level of "ludicrous spitefulness" --
it's more like "dull, petulant nagging").
Dull, indeed - more tedious for me than for a reader - but "petulant" is
special pleading on your part.
The fact as I see it is that Richardson is a phoney. Do you think he should
have a quota of free goes at imposing his falsehoods on SGM readers? Or are
you just one of the small crowd that "Ooohs" and "Aaahs" at the fine robes
of this naked emperor of scholarship, and can't bear to hear a voice telling
the truth about his misrepresentations?
How funny you find Spencer's fantasies about my health tells us more about
you than about him or me. He can't know what he is talking about (and that
never stopped him, of course) but you can't have any basis apart from malice
for laughing at what one stranger says of another.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:42794023@news.ColoState.EDU...
The composer Scriabin tried to mix sight & sound by having coloured slides
projected while one of his work was performed. This didn't catch on,
although the gimmick has been revived occasionally.
A few people experience visual sensations from sound stimuli. I don't know
if these are always vague or sometimes amount to detailed pictures, as LSD
is reported to cause.
Peter Stewart
news:42794023@news.ColoState.EDU...
Gordon Banks wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 06:05 -0700, starbuck95 wrote:
Oh, you know, the famous 'acquired' brain injury and all. Don't those
sorts of injuries sometimes induce synaesthesia?
The answer to that is no. Synesthesia probably comes from a failure to
fully separate sensory modalities during neonatal brain development
That or LSD.
The composer Scriabin tried to mix sight & sound by having coloured slides
projected while one of his work was performed. This didn't catch on,
although the gimmick has been revived occasionally.
A few people experience visual sensations from sound stimuli. I don't know
if these are always vague or sometimes amount to detailed pictures, as LSD
is reported to cause.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
Dynbach wrote:
Again the endless refrain of "I can't help myself from opening your
posts & reading every word in them, but I wish to be spared from my own
curiosity so please keep quiet & leave me undisturbed".
SGM is a tiny little corner of the world of medieval studies. Anyone
wishing to blow his or her own trumpet across the field would be
ill-advised to waste breath doing it here, although we see that happen
almost every day when books are nearing ready for sale.
My particular reason for persisting on this subject in this place is
not for personal gain or gratification - I am not engaged in this
sphere for profit anyway, and Richardson's stomping ground of the
English gentry & colonial "gateway" ancestors has no interest for me.
However, most people come to the study of genealogy hoping in good
faith to discover factual information about their ancestors. The
majority are not familiar with medieval history, and don't have the
leisure to undertake a crash course in the subject.
Many of these people have been bamboozled over years by Douglas
Richardson and his self-promoting effrontery. When he tells them stuff
& nonsense like his effort the other day ("Willelmus...domino"), the
response is often "Thank you, O wise one, for sharing these dainty
morsels of your erudition", when he is in reality stuffing chunks of
toxic styro-foam down their throats, or feeding them intellectual
carcinogens by his twisted interpretations of misunderstood evidence.
And yet some prefer not to be told that this is a shonk. And in a forum
dedicated to medieval genealogy, everyone's time is wasted with this
while a post about, for instance, a revision to the accepted death date
of just about everyone's ancestor Pippin the Fat goes unquestioned
(except off-list by Leo, as always, conscientiously checking to
maintain his database for the edification of others).
Go figure.
Peter Stewart
Having read all the contents etc,
Isn't time that the pair of you either grow up and shake hands
or just bugger off!
Again the endless refrain of "I can't help myself from opening your
posts & reading every word in them, but I wish to be spared from my own
curiosity so please keep quiet & leave me undisturbed".
SGM is a tiny little corner of the world of medieval studies. Anyone
wishing to blow his or her own trumpet across the field would be
ill-advised to waste breath doing it here, although we see that happen
almost every day when books are nearing ready for sale.
My particular reason for persisting on this subject in this place is
not for personal gain or gratification - I am not engaged in this
sphere for profit anyway, and Richardson's stomping ground of the
English gentry & colonial "gateway" ancestors has no interest for me.
However, most people come to the study of genealogy hoping in good
faith to discover factual information about their ancestors. The
majority are not familiar with medieval history, and don't have the
leisure to undertake a crash course in the subject.
Many of these people have been bamboozled over years by Douglas
Richardson and his self-promoting effrontery. When he tells them stuff
& nonsense like his effort the other day ("Willelmus...domino"), the
response is often "Thank you, O wise one, for sharing these dainty
morsels of your erudition", when he is in reality stuffing chunks of
toxic styro-foam down their throats, or feeding them intellectual
carcinogens by his twisted interpretations of misunderstood evidence.
And yet some prefer not to be told that this is a shonk. And in a forum
dedicated to medieval genealogy, everyone's time is wasted with this
while a post about, for instance, a revision to the accepted death date
of just about everyone's ancestor Pippin the Fat goes unquestioned
(except off-list by Leo, as always, conscientiously checking to
maintain his database for the edification of others).
Go figure.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: to Peter Stewart
In message of 5 May, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
You have hit a serious problem here. It is that there are not a few
who know nothing about carolingian history and certainly have no
adequate reference books of the genealogies of those times. If we know
nothing we correctly remain silent, though are grateful for the crumbs
that fall from the Master's table and duly filed under the general
heading of Pearls Beyond Price.
For times after 1066 there are several excellent publications that are
well researched (and, joy of all joys, in English). I have spent
months, years even, poring over Complete Peerage, the Domesday pair and
English Baronies. More recently we have the privilege of access to the
online A2A resources. But I have yet to find a set of volumes about
carolingian genealogy or history that matches up to the quality of
these sources. As a result I do not get my feet wet in this area.
I think there is some sort of market for a scholarly and well
referenced carolingian genealogy, preferably (translated into) in
English for linguistically incompetent people such as myself.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
... a post about, for instance, a revision to the accepted death date
of just about everyone's ancestor Pippin the Fat goes unquestioned
(except off-list by Leo, as always, conscientiously checking to
maintain his database for the edification of others).
You have hit a serious problem here. It is that there are not a few
who know nothing about carolingian history and certainly have no
adequate reference books of the genealogies of those times. If we know
nothing we correctly remain silent, though are grateful for the crumbs
that fall from the Master's table and duly filed under the general
heading of Pearls Beyond Price.
For times after 1066 there are several excellent publications that are
well researched (and, joy of all joys, in English). I have spent
months, years even, poring over Complete Peerage, the Domesday pair and
English Baronies. More recently we have the privilege of access to the
online A2A resources. But I have yet to find a set of volumes about
carolingian genealogy or history that matches up to the quality of
these sources. As a result I do not get my feet wet in this area.
I think there is some sort of market for a scholarly and well
referenced carolingian genealogy, preferably (translated into) in
English for linguistically incompetent people such as myself.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:950438664d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
I don't think SGM discussions should be conducted only amongst people who
think they already know about the subject - some excellent insights can come
from people looking into a question for the first time, and with no
preconceived notions about it or related matters.
Also, it's not necessary to know a lot of the background in order to ask
pertinent questions. In this case, for instance:
Why should the necrology of a church in Metz, possibly copied later, be
considered more reliable than the annals compiled in the same place by from
contemporary records?
or, perhaps:
Is it likely to be a mere co-incidence that both the November (15th) and
December (16th) dates were both 17th before the kalends of the following
month? Would it have taken 31 days for Pippin's corpse to be transported
from Jupille to Metz and buried there? Alternatively, did one record or
other simply get the month wrong, substituting "Decembris" for "Ianuarii" or
vice versa?
Depoin's information is interesting, and it has been unaccountably
overlooked, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily conclusive. And for all
I know, there may be other indications altogether, contradicting both dates.
Peter Stewart
news:950438664d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 5 May, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
... a post about, for instance, a revision to the accepted death date
of just about everyone's ancestor Pippin the Fat goes unquestioned
(except off-list by Leo, as always, conscientiously checking to
maintain his database for the edification of others).
You have hit a serious problem here. It is that there are not a few
who know nothing about carolingian history and certainly have no
adequate reference books of the genealogies of those times. If we know
nothing we correctly remain silent
I don't think SGM discussions should be conducted only amongst people who
think they already know about the subject - some excellent insights can come
from people looking into a question for the first time, and with no
preconceived notions about it or related matters.
Also, it's not necessary to know a lot of the background in order to ask
pertinent questions. In this case, for instance:
Why should the necrology of a church in Metz, possibly copied later, be
considered more reliable than the annals compiled in the same place by from
contemporary records?
or, perhaps:
Is it likely to be a mere co-incidence that both the November (15th) and
December (16th) dates were both 17th before the kalends of the following
month? Would it have taken 31 days for Pippin's corpse to be transported
from Jupille to Metz and buried there? Alternatively, did one record or
other simply get the month wrong, substituting "Decembris" for "Ianuarii" or
vice versa?
Depoin's information is interesting, and it has been unaccountably
overlooked, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily conclusive. And for all
I know, there may be other indications altogether, contradicting both dates.
Peter Stewart
-
starbuck95
Re: to Peter Stewart
Dull, indeed - more tedious for me than for a reader -but "petulant"
is special pleading on your part.
Don't give yourself airs (in fact, it's deadly dull for readers who go
through everything you've written on the topic). So please cease and
desist.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115292965.635714.108260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No.
You take it on yourself to speak for the newsgroup? What about those who
write to me off-list asking me not to be deflected by whingers like you?
If you are fool enough to go on reading material that you find dull, there
is no help I can suggest.
Only - don't get ideas that your vapid one-liners are witty, wise or
effective. You haven't hit a mark yet....
Peter Stewart
news:1115292965.635714.108260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dull, indeed - more tedious for me than for a reader -but "petulant"
is special pleading on your part.
Don't give yourself airs (in fact, it's deadly dull for readers who go
through everything you've written on the topic). So please cease and
desist.
No.
You take it on yourself to speak for the newsgroup? What about those who
write to me off-list asking me not to be deflected by whingers like you?
If you are fool enough to go on reading material that you find dull, there
is no help I can suggest.
Only - don't get ideas that your vapid one-liners are witty, wise or
effective. You haven't hit a mark yet....
Peter Stewart
-
starbuck95
Re: to Peter Stewart
Only - don't get ideas that your vapid one-liners are witty, wise or
effective. You haven't hit a mark yet....
From your extensive responses to what I've written, I suspect this
isn't true ...
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: To Peter Stewart
Nonsense.
Peter Stewart is never dull -- incoherent and careless perhaps, but
never dull.
DSH
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115292965.635714.108260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >>Dull, indeed - more tedious for me than for a reader -but "petulant"
| is special pleading on your part.
|
| Don't give yourself airs (in fact, it's deadly dull for readers who go
| through everything you've written on the topic). So please cease and
| desist.
Peter Stewart is never dull -- incoherent and careless perhaps, but
never dull.
DSH
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115292965.635714.108260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >>Dull, indeed - more tedious for me than for a reader -but "petulant"
| is special pleading on your part.
|
| Don't give yourself airs (in fact, it's deadly dull for readers who go
| through everything you've written on the topic). So please cease and
| desist.
-
starbuck95
Re: To Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart is never dull -- incoherent and careless perhaps, but
never dull.
That would be true if you left out all his references to Doug.
But do five or ten postings of substance really constitute a
scintillating _oeuvre_?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115298128.327455.115930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Not so - I respond when I think a response is merited, and if you read
enough of my posts you would see that doesn't mean a point has been made
rather than merely attempted.
You are clearly capable of better than some of your inane jeering comments.
Why not address the substance of attacks on Richardson if you feel that
these are unjustified, instead of griping about the tedium while admitting
that you nevertheless keep on reading them?
No-one EVER tries to refute the specific and detailed case against his
self-proclaimed scholarship, and sooner or later every supporter feebly
retreats to a position of "I don't like it so it ought to stop". Unless you
are a shamelessly besotted egotist, you must realise that your likes and
dislikes don't command others.
Peter Stewart
news:1115298128.327455.115930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Only - don't get ideas that your vapid one-liners are witty, wise or
effective. You haven't hit a mark yet....
From your extensive responses to what I've written, I suspect this
isn't true ...
Not so - I respond when I think a response is merited, and if you read
enough of my posts you would see that doesn't mean a point has been made
rather than merely attempted.
You are clearly capable of better than some of your inane jeering comments.
Why not address the substance of attacks on Richardson if you feel that
these are unjustified, instead of griping about the tedium while admitting
that you nevertheless keep on reading them?
No-one EVER tries to refute the specific and detailed case against his
self-proclaimed scholarship, and sooner or later every supporter feebly
retreats to a position of "I don't like it so it ought to stop". Unless you
are a shamelessly besotted egotist, you must realise that your likes and
dislikes don't command others.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: To Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115315480.583904.133670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Leaving out the last comment, which is neither here nor there to me, "five
or ten" is preposterous - I have been posting substantial, documented
answers for years in response to questions in this forum, and occasionally
initiate threads to bring information to light quickly that otherwise I
could keep to myself or store up for print.
I don't expect, or wish, to be thanked or praised - but I won't accept a
graceless falsehood trying to belittle my efforts, especially from someone
who talks to himself here in a desultory and erratic way, usually off-topic,
much more often than engaging in discussion about medieval genealogy.
Peter Stewart
news:1115315480.583904.133670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart is never dull -- incoherent and careless perhaps, but
never dull.
That would be true if you left out all his references to Doug.
But do five or ten postings of substance really constitute a
scintillating _oeuvre_?
Leaving out the last comment, which is neither here nor there to me, "five
or ten" is preposterous - I have been posting substantial, documented
answers for years in response to questions in this forum, and occasionally
initiate threads to bring information to light quickly that otherwise I
could keep to myself or store up for print.
I don't expect, or wish, to be thanked or praised - but I won't accept a
graceless falsehood trying to belittle my efforts, especially from someone
who talks to himself here in a desultory and erratic way, usually off-topic,
much more often than engaging in discussion about medieval genealogy.
Peter Stewart
-
starbuck95
Re: to Peter Stewart
Once again you have wasted far more time on this topic than I am
willing to devote to it. Goodbye.
willing to devote to it. Goodbye.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: to Peter Stewart
At last, he has the sense to switch off.
But of course he did so as he couldn't come up with a cogent defense of his
hero.
O well, even cowardly silence is a mercy from such a rattle-bag.
Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115330826.240889.53590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But of course he did so as he couldn't come up with a cogent defense of his
hero.
O well, even cowardly silence is a mercy from such a rattle-bag.
Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115330826.240889.53590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Once again you have wasted far more time on this topic than I am
willing to devote to it. Goodbye.
-
Gordon Banks
Re: to Peter Stewart
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 22:39 +0000, Peter Stewart wrote:
As I recall, Scriabin was a synesthete. Maybe he was trying to get
others to see the colors he associated with the notes. Of course, other
synesthetes might not see the same colors Scriabin did for the same
note.
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
The composer Scriabin tried to mix sight & sound by having coloured slides
projected while one of his work was performed. This didn't catch on,
although the gimmick has been revived occasionally.
As I recall, Scriabin was a synesthete. Maybe he was trying to get
others to see the colors he associated with the notes. Of course, other
synesthetes might not see the same colors Scriabin did for the same
note.
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
-
Peter Stewart
Re: To Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7isee.263$Q15.2349@eagle.america.net...
Thank you, Spencer - for the "perhaps", that is.
"Dull" I may be, and on this subject certainly repetitious which can be
practically the same.
For some irrational cause, a number of readers think they are the sole
audience for any point, and that once they have received it or rejected it
any issue with ongoing, repetitious behaviour should vanish into thin air,
to the benefit of the perpetrator.
It IS dull to keep pointing out the problem. The remedy is simple -
Richardson should try to learn the basics of his craft as a scholar, in a
field where he already knows a fair amount and how to look for more. He can
readily equip himself with the skills he lacks at present to increase this
patchy learning & make better use of his accomplishments to date, if only he
would make the effort instead of resting on borrowed laurels.
Peter Stewart
news:7isee.263$Q15.2349@eagle.america.net...
Nonsense.
Peter Stewart is never dull -- incoherent and careless perhaps, but
never dull.
Thank you, Spencer - for the "perhaps", that is.
"Dull" I may be, and on this subject certainly repetitious which can be
practically the same.
For some irrational cause, a number of readers think they are the sole
audience for any point, and that once they have received it or rejected it
any issue with ongoing, repetitious behaviour should vanish into thin air,
to the benefit of the perpetrator.
It IS dull to keep pointing out the problem. The remedy is simple -
Richardson should try to learn the basics of his craft as a scholar, in a
field where he already knows a fair amount and how to look for more. He can
readily equip himself with the skills he lacks at present to increase this
patchy learning & make better use of his accomplishments to date, if only he
would make the effort instead of resting on borrowed laurels.
Peter Stewart
-
starbuck95
Re: To Peter Stewart
The remedy is simple - Richardson should try to learn the basics of
his craft as a scholar, in a
field where he already knows a fair amount and how to look for more. He
can readily equip himself with the skills he lacks at present to
increase this
patchy learning & make better use of his accomplishments to date, if
only he would make the effort instead of resting on borrowed laurels.
This is just silly and patronizing, when Doug has already published a
huge book and has another whopper currently at the printers'. Yes,
there are a few problems here and there, but most of it is sound.
Maybe PMS will see fit to publish a volume to supercede Doug's. But
don't hold your breath. (Peter better not either; we wouldn't want him
to exacerbate his dain bramage).
-
Peter Stewart
Re: To Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115340913.368856.325820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Here we go again - just when he said "Goodbye". It's like trying to clear a
sludge of silliness that just keeps oozing back.
How can John Brandon possibly know that "most of it is sound" unless he has
either checked every last, loose reference to ensure that Richardson has
understood and correctly interpreted the evidence behind it, or else has
corroborated details from other published sources where Richardson probably
found them in the first place?
The simple FACT is that the man is NOT EQUIPPED to undertake his own
ORIGINAL research in sources that were written in Latin and French, i.e. the
vast bulk of primary materials for the subject of his work THAT HE CLAIMS IS
BASED ON SUCH RESEARCH.
John now seems to think that mere SIZE counts as QUALITY. What can the
whopping scale of books have to do with the scholarly standards to be found
in them?
Every line of PA3 that has been closely examined here has turned up serious
if not fatal flaws in the research and/or conclusions presented by
Richardson. To assume blandly that nothing like this occurs anywhere else is
foolhardy, to say the least.
As to my producing a shadow volume in order to have the right to criticise
his, that is infantile. I have made it quite plain that my interests lie
elsewhere, except in this respect: that the study of genealogy deserves
better than to be dragged back into disrepute by shoddy and over-hyped,
second-rate and mostly third-hand, basically commercial rater than scholarly
projects such as PA3 and the forthcoming book.
Try for once to answer the specifics instead of resorting to another
dismissive & infelicitous one-liner.
Peter Stewart
news:1115340913.368856.325820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The remedy is simple - Richardson should try to learn the basics of
his craft as a scholar, in a
field where he already knows a fair amount and how to look for more. He
can readily equip himself with the skills he lacks at present to
increase this
patchy learning & make better use of his accomplishments to date, if
only he would make the effort instead of resting on borrowed laurels.
This is just silly and patronizing, when Doug has already published a
huge book and has another whopper currently at the printers'. Yes,
there are a few problems here and there, but most of it is sound.
Maybe PMS will see fit to publish a volume to supercede Doug's. But
don't hold your breath. (Peter better not either; we wouldn't want him
to exacerbate his dain bramage).
Here we go again - just when he said "Goodbye". It's like trying to clear a
sludge of silliness that just keeps oozing back.
How can John Brandon possibly know that "most of it is sound" unless he has
either checked every last, loose reference to ensure that Richardson has
understood and correctly interpreted the evidence behind it, or else has
corroborated details from other published sources where Richardson probably
found them in the first place?
The simple FACT is that the man is NOT EQUIPPED to undertake his own
ORIGINAL research in sources that were written in Latin and French, i.e. the
vast bulk of primary materials for the subject of his work THAT HE CLAIMS IS
BASED ON SUCH RESEARCH.
John now seems to think that mere SIZE counts as QUALITY. What can the
whopping scale of books have to do with the scholarly standards to be found
in them?
Every line of PA3 that has been closely examined here has turned up serious
if not fatal flaws in the research and/or conclusions presented by
Richardson. To assume blandly that nothing like this occurs anywhere else is
foolhardy, to say the least.
As to my producing a shadow volume in order to have the right to criticise
his, that is infantile. I have made it quite plain that my interests lie
elsewhere, except in this respect: that the study of genealogy deserves
better than to be dragged back into disrepute by shoddy and over-hyped,
second-rate and mostly third-hand, basically commercial rater than scholarly
projects such as PA3 and the forthcoming book.
Try for once to answer the specifics instead of resorting to another
dismissive & infelicitous one-liner.
Peter Stewart
-
pj.evans
Re: To Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart wrote:
[snipped]
But
Long-winded. But consistent!
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115340913.368856.325820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The remedy is simple - Richardson should try to learn the basics
of
[snipped]
But
don't hold your breath. (Peter better not either; we wouldn't want
him
to exacerbate his dain bramage).
Here we go again - just when he said "Goodbye". It's like trying to
clear a
sludge of silliness that just keeps oozing back.
How can John Brandon possibly know that "most of it is sound" unless
he has
either checked every last, loose reference to ensure that Richardson
has
understood and correctly interpreted the evidence behind it, or else
has
corroborated details from other published sources where Richardson
probably
found them in the first place?
[snipped]
Try for once to answer the specifics instead of resorting to another
dismissive & infelicitous one-liner.
Peter Stewart
Long-winded. But consistent!
-
Peter Stewart
Re: To Peter Stewart
"pj.evans" <pj.evans.gen@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1115349720.110852.186780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Yes indeed, pj - I've been accused of being too terse in SGM posts, but that
also doesn't appear to help in getting through to the "Nay" brigade who want
me to leave off but can't yet muster an argument amongst the lot of them.
Peter Stewart
news:1115349720.110852.186780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Long-winded. But consistent!
Yes indeed, pj - I've been accused of being too terse in SGM posts, but that
also doesn't appear to help in getting through to the "Nay" brigade who want
me to leave off but can't yet muster an argument amongst the lot of them.
Peter Stewart
-
starbuck95
Re: To Peter Stewart
John Brandon can know that most of it is sound because most of it
already appeared in David Faris' book. You didn't have a bad thing to
say about that publication, did you?
But Doug has also added certain of his own new finds and lines, and
most of them are perfectly unexceptionable--for instance, the new lines
behind Simon Lynde and Anne Mauleverer, and the new gateway immigrants
James Taylor and Elizabeth Alsop-Baldwin-Fowler, among others.
You are aware that many (? most) people on the newsgroup have purchased
Doug's book, aren't you? I bought two copies, and I'm planning to buy
the new book.
Perhaps the best way you can spend your time now is in writing an
article for one of the genealogical journals detailing what you think
is wrong about Doug's book(s). (People don't put all that much stock
in the things they read on a newsgroup).
already appeared in David Faris' book. You didn't have a bad thing to
say about that publication, did you?
But Doug has also added certain of his own new finds and lines, and
most of them are perfectly unexceptionable--for instance, the new lines
behind Simon Lynde and Anne Mauleverer, and the new gateway immigrants
James Taylor and Elizabeth Alsop-Baldwin-Fowler, among others.
You are aware that many (? most) people on the newsgroup have purchased
Doug's book, aren't you? I bought two copies, and I'm planning to buy
the new book.
Perhaps the best way you can spend your time now is in writing an
article for one of the genealogical journals detailing what you think
is wrong about Doug's book(s). (People don't put all that much stock
in the things they read on a newsgroup).
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: To Peter Stewart
Dear Marilyn ~
I've replied to you. Check your inbox.
Douglas Richardson
I've replied to you. Check your inbox.
Douglas Richardson
-
Symonds
Re: To Peter Stewart
I still have not rec'd the e-mail as promised from Mr. Richardson
regarding purchasing his book.
Marilyn
starbuck95 wrote:
regarding purchasing his book.
Marilyn
starbuck95 wrote:
You are aware that many (? most) people on the newsgroup have purchased
Doug's book, aren't you? I bought two copies, and I'm planning to buy
the new book.
-
Gjest
Re: To Peter Stewart
starbuck95 wrote:
Gary Roberts RD 600 gives credit to other people,
not Doug, as the ones who discovered these lines.
Of the two he recently published:
1. Edward Rainsford -
was a re examination of someone else's discovery.
2. Percival Lowell -
he had a co author on this one.
Leslie
But Doug has also added certain of his own new finds and lines, and
most of them are perfectly unexceptionable--for instance, the new
lines
behind Simon Lynde and Anne Mauleverer, and the new gateway
immigrants
James Taylor and Elizabeth Alsop-Baldwin-Fowler, among others.
Gary Roberts RD 600 gives credit to other people,
not Doug, as the ones who discovered these lines.
Of the two he recently published:
1. Edward Rainsford -
was a re examination of someone else's discovery.
2. Percival Lowell -
he had a co author on this one.
Leslie
-
starbuck95
Re: To Peter Stewart
Well, I think the James Taylor origin in England was found by Dearborn
at the NEHGS, but the line of royal ancestry was developed by Doug.
The Alsop royal line was actually found by Albert Muth, who didn't want
to publish on it.
So we should be thankful to Douglas for developing and publishing them,
at least.
Does anybody know anything about the status of the Emanuel Woolley of
Rhode Island line that Gary stated was forthcoming in the _Register_?
at the NEHGS, but the line of royal ancestry was developed by Doug.
The Alsop royal line was actually found by Albert Muth, who didn't want
to publish on it.
So we should be thankful to Douglas for developing and publishing them,
at least.
Does anybody know anything about the status of the Emanuel Woolley of
Rhode Island line that Gary stated was forthcoming in the _Register_?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: To Peter Stewart
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115387560.073788.42860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
How interesting - I recollect that we were told by the author to use a
different title for his work, dissociating the book from Faris. Now you say
"most" of Richardson's book appeared in the earlier publications of Faris. I
presume therefore that the late Dr Faris is professionally & fully
acknowledged as at least co-author, on the title page?
Yes, we were told often that Richardson had added mightily to the work of
Faris assisted by himself - so much that it surprises me to be told "most"
of his new book appeared in print before. A few unexceptoinable new lines is
scarcely proof that, apart from the problems discussed here, the book chould
be considered reliable.
So what? Millions have bought the "Da Vinci Code" book, but does that make
it any less odious & stupid?
I am not going to review PA3 - whether or not anyone puts stock in SGM, I
choose to participate in this forum as an efficient way to help in the
spreading of sound, tested information to people who take up medieval
genealogy as a hobby. Many of them don't have time for this to waste years
on false leads & sham scholarship, "developing" lines that may or may not
stand up to critical analysis by a real expert who isn't bent on taking
their money - for work that, insofar as it is reliable, was "mostly" done by
others.
Peter Stewart
news:1115387560.073788.42860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
John Brandon can know that most of it is sound because most of it
already appeared in David Faris' book. You didn't have a bad thing to
say about that publication, did you?
How interesting - I recollect that we were told by the author to use a
different title for his work, dissociating the book from Faris. Now you say
"most" of Richardson's book appeared in the earlier publications of Faris. I
presume therefore that the late Dr Faris is professionally & fully
acknowledged as at least co-author, on the title page?
But Doug has also added certain of his own new finds and lines, and
most of them are perfectly unexceptionable--for instance, the new lines
behind Simon Lynde and Anne Mauleverer, and the new gateway immigrants
James Taylor and Elizabeth Alsop-Baldwin-Fowler, among others.
Yes, we were told often that Richardson had added mightily to the work of
Faris assisted by himself - so much that it surprises me to be told "most"
of his new book appeared in print before. A few unexceptoinable new lines is
scarcely proof that, apart from the problems discussed here, the book chould
be considered reliable.
You are aware that many (? most) people on the newsgroup have purchased
Doug's book, aren't you? I bought two copies, and I'm planning to buy
the new book.
So what? Millions have bought the "Da Vinci Code" book, but does that make
it any less odious & stupid?
Perhaps the best way you can spend your time now is in writing an
article for one of the genealogical journals detailing what you think
is wrong about Doug's book(s). (People don't put all that much stock
in the things they read on a newsgroup).
I am not going to review PA3 - whether or not anyone puts stock in SGM, I
choose to participate in this forum as an efficient way to help in the
spreading of sound, tested information to people who take up medieval
genealogy as a hobby. Many of them don't have time for this to waste years
on false leads & sham scholarship, "developing" lines that may or may not
stand up to critical analysis by a real expert who isn't bent on taking
their money - for work that, insofar as it is reliable, was "mostly" done by
others.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: To Peter Stewart
Dear Mr. Stewart ~
Oh, ye of many pretentions!
You've been caught in many errors here on the newsgroup. Is it
necessary for me to remind you? The most recent one was the Reedy
fiasco which blew up in your face. You clumsily alleged that Sir Alan
Basset had two wives, yet you had a charter right in front of you which
showed us all otherwise. This was hardly spreading "sound, tested
information." Now was it? It was neither sound, nor tested!
Next thing you'll be telling us you invented genealogy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Oh, ye of many pretentions!
You've been caught in many errors here on the newsgroup. Is it
necessary for me to remind you? The most recent one was the Reedy
fiasco which blew up in your face. You clumsily alleged that Sir Alan
Basset had two wives, yet you had a charter right in front of you which
showed us all otherwise. This was hardly spreading "sound, tested
information." Now was it? It was neither sound, nor tested!
Next thing you'll be telling us you invented genealogy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
I am not going to review PA3 - whether or not anyone puts stock in
SGM, I
choose to participate in this forum as an efficient way to help in
the
spreading of sound, tested information to people who take up medieval
genealogy as a hobby.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: To Peter Stewart
In message of 7 May, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
(Written to a public newsgroup so I am at liberty to comment.)
Oh dear, just when I was about to give some credit for acknowledging
that a statement on a charter was a misrepresentation.
This, now, is a misrepresentation of what he said. He was questioning
the evidence and asserted nothing. I have found this in the annals from
the 18th April:
The fact that an abstract of a charter into a modern language is
misrepresented as a transcript of same is enough to justify all
rigorous questionings of all assertions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Stewart ~
(Written to a public newsgroup so I am at liberty to comment.)
Oh, ye of many pretentions!
You've been caught in many errors here on the newsgroup. Is it
necessary for me to remind you? The most recent one was the Reedy
fiasco which blew up in your face. You clumsily alleged that Sir Alan
Basset had two wives, yet you had a charter right in front of you which
showed us all otherwise. This was hardly spreading "sound, tested
information." Now was it? It was neither sound, nor tested!
Oh dear, just when I was about to give some credit for acknowledging
that a statement on a charter was a misrepresentation.
This, now, is a misrepresentation of what he said. He was questioning
the evidence and asserted nothing. I have found this in the annals from
the 18th April:
I haven't sone [sic] any research on the question - I am
participating in a newsgroup thread started by YOU, with the
purpose of ensuring that YOU don't foist more garbage or slipshod
research on SGM & your other readers.
If you read my posts with honest eyes (an impossibility, I grant) you
would see that I have made NO claims whatever, just questioned yours
for the sake of clarifying why acknowledged experts in the field have
come to different views on the point at issue. What else is SGM
discussion for? I have no intention of publishing anything on this
subject, and I am plainly NOT researching it for my own ends.
The fact that an abstract of a charter into a modern language is
misrepresented as a transcript of same is enough to justify all
rigorous questionings of all assertions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: To Tim Powys-Lybbe
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Dear Tim ~
If you're going to play Peter Stewart's sock puppet, please cite the
right charter. Otherwise you will only succeed in embarassing him
further.
I was discussing the 1191 charter of Alan Basset published by Reedy
proving that Alan Basset had only one wife. This is a separate and
distinct charter than the 1230 charter published by Loyd and Stenton
granting Alan Basset the right to empark some land. Is that too
rigorous for you to absorb? Well, if so, take off the sock and relax a
little. You're a good man, Tim, just a little uptight.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
The fact that an abstract of a charter into a modern language is
misrepresented as a transcript of same is enough to justify all
rigorous questionings of all assertions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
Dear Tim ~
If you're going to play Peter Stewart's sock puppet, please cite the
right charter. Otherwise you will only succeed in embarassing him
further.
I was discussing the 1191 charter of Alan Basset published by Reedy
proving that Alan Basset had only one wife. This is a separate and
distinct charter than the 1230 charter published by Loyd and Stenton
granting Alan Basset the right to empark some land. Is that too
rigorous for you to absorb? Well, if so, take off the sock and relax a
little. You're a good man, Tim, just a little uptight.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: To Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115492503.639894.296730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Another outright lie - and this was so recent that you can't expect ANYONE,
even of your dwindling band of groupies, to believe this blatant
misrepresentation.
I pointed out that Reedy took a different view from yours, and that you had
not accounted for this satisfactorily as you were obliged to do if seeking
to amend the record, since his work was the current authority on the Basset
family at the time in question.
That is the plain truth, and you can't remake it to suit your devious
purposes.
If you wish to make allegations about "many errors' on my part that you
imagine I have been "caught in", you will have to specify these. It IS
necessary to remind me - could it be that you are rabbiting on again about
"cognatus"? If so, in that matter you were claiming to have "caught" every
lexicographer of note. Fancy that, when you don't even know the most basic
Latin.
Making preposterous, self-promoting claims is your habit, not mine - yet
again, you are projecting your vices onto others. Perhaps only medical
intervention can help you in this, I certainly can't.
Peter Stewart
news:1115492503.639894.296730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Mr. Stewart ~
Oh, ye of many pretentions!
You've been caught in many errors here on the newsgroup. Is it
necessary for me to remind you? The most recent one was the Reedy
fiasco which blew up in your face. You clumsily alleged that Sir Alan
Basset had two wives, yet you had a charter right in front of you which
showed us all otherwise. This was hardly spreading "sound, tested
information." Now was it? It was neither sound, nor tested!
Another outright lie - and this was so recent that you can't expect ANYONE,
even of your dwindling band of groupies, to believe this blatant
misrepresentation.
I pointed out that Reedy took a different view from yours, and that you had
not accounted for this satisfactorily as you were obliged to do if seeking
to amend the record, since his work was the current authority on the Basset
family at the time in question.
That is the plain truth, and you can't remake it to suit your devious
purposes.
If you wish to make allegations about "many errors' on my part that you
imagine I have been "caught in", you will have to specify these. It IS
necessary to remind me - could it be that you are rabbiting on again about
"cognatus"? If so, in that matter you were claiming to have "caught" every
lexicographer of note. Fancy that, when you don't even know the most basic
Latin.
Next thing you'll be telling us you invented genealogy.
Making preposterous, self-promoting claims is your habit, not mine - yet
again, you are projecting your vices onto others. Perhaps only medical
intervention can help you in this, I certainly can't.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: To Tim Powys-Lybbe
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115498777.966189.38260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Not for the first time, I have no idea at all what Richardson is talking
about.
First, Tim is perfectly entitled to post on any subject that he pleases, and
since there has been no contact off-list between him and me about this
thread he can hardly be acting as my "sock puppet". Unlike Richardson with
his defunct alter ego "Uriah N. Owen" and occasional abuse of the identity
"Mike Welch", he is scarcely credible on the issue of ventriloquism.
Secondly, although as I said before I haven't researched this in detail and
haven't followed all of the discussion here, I can't find any 1191 charter
in Reedy's book, much less one that proves anything at all about the marital
status of Alan Basset. The index has only one entry for his purported wife
Alice, in an editorial note from which I quoted earlier, to no. 242
mentioning Alina. This document is dated "1205 x 30". The only other index
entry for a wife of Alan is no. 100, dated "16 April 1206", again mentioning
Alina.
What is the "1191 charter of Alan Basset published by Reedy"?
Peter Stewart
news:1115498777.966189.38260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
The fact that an abstract of a charter into a modern language is
misrepresented as a transcript of same is enough to justify all
rigorous questionings of all assertions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
Dear Tim ~
If you're going to play Peter Stewart's sock puppet, please cite the
right charter. Otherwise you will only succeed in embarassing him
further.
I was discussing the 1191 charter of Alan Basset published by Reedy
proving that Alan Basset had only one wife.
Not for the first time, I have no idea at all what Richardson is talking
about.
First, Tim is perfectly entitled to post on any subject that he pleases, and
since there has been no contact off-list between him and me about this
thread he can hardly be acting as my "sock puppet". Unlike Richardson with
his defunct alter ego "Uriah N. Owen" and occasional abuse of the identity
"Mike Welch", he is scarcely credible on the issue of ventriloquism.
Secondly, although as I said before I haven't researched this in detail and
haven't followed all of the discussion here, I can't find any 1191 charter
in Reedy's book, much less one that proves anything at all about the marital
status of Alan Basset. The index has only one entry for his purported wife
Alice, in an editorial note from which I quoted earlier, to no. 242
mentioning Alina. This document is dated "1205 x 30". The only other index
entry for a wife of Alan is no. 100, dated "16 April 1206", again mentioning
Alina.
What is the "1191 charter of Alan Basset published by Reedy"?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: To Peter Stewart
Dear Mr. Stewart ~
You had Mr. Reedy's book in your hands, same as me. I got it right.
You got it wrong. Now you're unable to explain why you got it wrong.
You're trying to blame me for your mistake. Shame, shame, shame.
Or, shall I remind you of your stupendous error about Alice of France?
In recent time John Carmi Parsons has once again confirmed her correct
parentage for us. Did you miss John Carmi Parsons' fine post? Next
you'll be telling us that Parsons is a "fool," a "fraud," or, worse
still, a "Richardson groupie?" Will your outrageous behavior never
cease?
And how are you coming with providing us English examples of "cognatus"
meaning "brother-in-law?" You confidently said it was the "quite
usual" meaning of the word, yet all you can quote is your precious
Latin dictionary! I've seen many examples of cognatus in the English
medieval literature since your first post. None of the references mean
"brother-in-law." Do you ever bother to read contemporary medieval
English charters? Or, do you live in a total fantasy world?
And, how could we forget your self confessed "sketchy and incomplete
research" on the Barons of Malpas? Paul Bulkeley hasn't. Nor has
anyone else. Mr. Bulkeley had repeatedly asked for you to produce your
evidence. He's still waiting.
This is the typical Peter Stewart pattern: Wild allegations,
unsubstantiated statements, outrageous lies, sketchy and incomplete
research, bobbing, weaving, and much pettifogging. And, when all else
fails, resort to name calling.
So much for "sound and tested" genealogy from Mr. Stewart. He's at the
end of his Reedy rope and there's no one to save him. Poor thing.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
You had Mr. Reedy's book in your hands, same as me. I got it right.
You got it wrong. Now you're unable to explain why you got it wrong.
You're trying to blame me for your mistake. Shame, shame, shame.
Or, shall I remind you of your stupendous error about Alice of France?
In recent time John Carmi Parsons has once again confirmed her correct
parentage for us. Did you miss John Carmi Parsons' fine post? Next
you'll be telling us that Parsons is a "fool," a "fraud," or, worse
still, a "Richardson groupie?" Will your outrageous behavior never
cease?
And how are you coming with providing us English examples of "cognatus"
meaning "brother-in-law?" You confidently said it was the "quite
usual" meaning of the word, yet all you can quote is your precious
Latin dictionary! I've seen many examples of cognatus in the English
medieval literature since your first post. None of the references mean
"brother-in-law." Do you ever bother to read contemporary medieval
English charters? Or, do you live in a total fantasy world?
And, how could we forget your self confessed "sketchy and incomplete
research" on the Barons of Malpas? Paul Bulkeley hasn't. Nor has
anyone else. Mr. Bulkeley had repeatedly asked for you to produce your
evidence. He's still waiting.
This is the typical Peter Stewart pattern: Wild allegations,
unsubstantiated statements, outrageous lies, sketchy and incomplete
research, bobbing, weaving, and much pettifogging. And, when all else
fails, resort to name calling.
So much for "sound and tested" genealogy from Mr. Stewart. He's at the
end of his Reedy rope and there's no one to save him. Poor thing.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115492503.639894.296730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Mr. Stewart ~
Oh, ye of many pretentions!
You've been caught in many errors here on the newsgroup. Is it
necessary for me to remind you? The most recent one was the Reedy
fiasco which blew up in your face. You clumsily alleged that Sir
Alan
Basset had two wives, yet you had a charter right in front of you
which
showed us all otherwise. This was hardly spreading "sound, tested
information." Now was it? It was neither sound, nor tested!
I pointed out that Reedy took a different view from yours, and that
you had
not accounted for this satisfactorily as you were obliged to do if
seeking
to amend the record, since his work was the current authority on the
Basset
family at the time in question.
That is the plain truth, and you can't remake it to suit your devious
purposes.
If you wish to make allegations about "many errors' on my part that
you
imagine I have been "caught in", you will have to specify these. It
IS
necessary to remind me - could it be that you are rabbiting on again
about
"cognatus"? If so, in that matter you were claiming to have "caught"
every
lexicographer of note. Fancy that, when you don't even know the most
basic
Latin.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Marriage Date of Sir Alan Basset and Aline de Gay
Peter Stewart wrote:
The charter is found on page 163 of Mr. Reedy's book. Alan Basset's
name is included in the synopsis provided by Mr. Reedy. It is a
renunciation document issued by Stephen prior and the convent of
Monkton Farleigh, Wiltshire of their claims against Alan Basset
concerning the advowson of the church of Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire.
The document is endorsed in a 13th century hand as follows: Carta
prior' et conventus de Farleg' de ecclesia de Wuttune."
Mr. Reedy has dated this charter as being sometime before 21 April
1191, when Prior Stephen's successor was deposed [Reference: Knowles,
Brooke, and London, Heads of Religious Houses, pg. 120]. Since Wootton
Bassett, Wiltshire was part of Aline de Gay's inheritance, this record
is good evidence that Sir Alan Basset and his wife, Aline de Gay, were
married sometime before 21 April 1191. Alan Basset would have no
interest in the advowson of the church of Wootton Bassett, except
through his wife, Aline. This record proves that Alan Basset was never
married to a wife named Alice de Gray, as alleged by Mr. Stewart.
Rather, Alan had but one known wife, Aline de Gay.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115498777.966189.38260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the "1191 charter of Alan Basset published by Reedy"?
Peter Stewart
The charter is found on page 163 of Mr. Reedy's book. Alan Basset's
name is included in the synopsis provided by Mr. Reedy. It is a
renunciation document issued by Stephen prior and the convent of
Monkton Farleigh, Wiltshire of their claims against Alan Basset
concerning the advowson of the church of Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire.
The document is endorsed in a 13th century hand as follows: Carta
prior' et conventus de Farleg' de ecclesia de Wuttune."
Mr. Reedy has dated this charter as being sometime before 21 April
1191, when Prior Stephen's successor was deposed [Reference: Knowles,
Brooke, and London, Heads of Religious Houses, pg. 120]. Since Wootton
Bassett, Wiltshire was part of Aline de Gay's inheritance, this record
is good evidence that Sir Alan Basset and his wife, Aline de Gay, were
married sometime before 21 April 1191. Alan Basset would have no
interest in the advowson of the church of Wootton Bassett, except
through his wife, Aline. This record proves that Alan Basset was never
married to a wife named Alice de Gray, as alleged by Mr. Stewart.
Rather, Alan had but one known wife, Aline de Gay.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: To Peter Stewart
The post from Richardson below is a lurid catalogue of falsehoods, just as I
expected from this lying blow-hard. Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115512223.508581.297090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You haven't established yet that there was any "1191 charter of Alan Basset
published by Reedy", that I couldn't find in his book, so don't get too far
ahead of yourself. Cite this properly, verifiably, then the question will be
how did Reedy overlook the evidence in it: I cannot have "got it wrong"
since I didn't reach any conclusion, or aim to, but only reminded (or told
you for the first time apparently) what the standard reference work on the
Basset family had to say about a matter YOU were researching, in your usual
haphazard way. Tim has already pointed out your distortion over this. Can't
you help making a greater fool of yourself even after you have been
corrected?
Yet again, I didn't make any "stupendous error" about this, but only
prompted you to do YOUR research thoroughly since you wanted to correct the
opinion of some (but not all) very distinguished experts - that you STILL
haven't done, by the way. I have no difference of opinion with John Carmi
Parsons on this matter. The question that remains isn't about what I think,
but about what led Delisle, Van Kerrebrouck and so many others to think as
they did.
On the contrary, it is you who inhabit a fantasy world - someone who doesn't
even know how many people are involved in "Willelmus domino", yet you
pretend to tell us from your extensive reading of Latin sources that you can
rule out an established meaning of "cognatus" from English usage in the 12th
century! I showed you that "cognatus" meant both brother-in-law and
father-in-law in highly important texts that were read throughout England
throughout the middle ages, and yet you still demur & try to crow about MY
error! Have you even bothered to read what Sir Donald Bullough had to say
about this in his paper "Early Medieval Social Groupings: The Terminology of
Kinship'? Or Anita Guerreau-Jalabert in her 'La désignation des relations et
des groupes de parenté en Latin médiéval'? Well, when you have, come and
tell us. Meanwhile my point about "cognatus" has been more than adequately
supported by the standard authorities, and I am NOT going to become your
research assistant.
You said it yourself: "self-confessed" by me, my research on this wasn't
complete - and still isn't, due to the theft of the single copy in Australia
of one of the essential sources. I am not about to spend the considerable
cost of an international loan, if this could even be obtained for a rare
early 19th-century book, in order to finish some research at Bulkley's
bidding & convenience. Once again, I NEVER claimed that there was direct
evidence for the version of the Malpas inheritance given by Ormerod and
accepted by Keats-Roan - you have fallen for Bulkley's shameless lie about
this. I should have thought you were smarter than that, on the basis of "it
takes one to know one".
No, all we have seen is a typical example of Douglas RIchardson trying to
evade a problem of his own making through preposterous misrepresentations
about someone else.
This is truly pitiful, and must make your few supporters squirm with
embarrassment at such a useless lie.
Peter Stewart
expected from this lying blow-hard. Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115512223.508581.297090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Mr. Stewart ~
You had Mr. Reedy's book in your hands, same as me. I got it right.
You got it wrong. Now you're unable to explain why you got it wrong.
You're trying to blame me for your mistake. Shame, shame, shame.
You haven't established yet that there was any "1191 charter of Alan Basset
published by Reedy", that I couldn't find in his book, so don't get too far
ahead of yourself. Cite this properly, verifiably, then the question will be
how did Reedy overlook the evidence in it: I cannot have "got it wrong"
since I didn't reach any conclusion, or aim to, but only reminded (or told
you for the first time apparently) what the standard reference work on the
Basset family had to say about a matter YOU were researching, in your usual
haphazard way. Tim has already pointed out your distortion over this. Can't
you help making a greater fool of yourself even after you have been
corrected?
Or, shall I remind you of your stupendous error about Alice of France?
In recent time John Carmi Parsons has once again confirmed her correct
parentage for us. Did you miss John Carmi Parsons' fine post? Next
you'll be telling us that Parsons is a "fool," a "fraud," or, worse
still, a "Richardson groupie?" Will your outrageous behavior never
cease?
Yet again, I didn't make any "stupendous error" about this, but only
prompted you to do YOUR research thoroughly since you wanted to correct the
opinion of some (but not all) very distinguished experts - that you STILL
haven't done, by the way. I have no difference of opinion with John Carmi
Parsons on this matter. The question that remains isn't about what I think,
but about what led Delisle, Van Kerrebrouck and so many others to think as
they did.
And how are you coming with providing us English examples of "cognatus"
meaning "brother-in-law?" You confidently said it was the "quite
usual" meaning of the word, yet all you can quote is your precious
Latin dictionary! I've seen many examples of cognatus in the English
medieval literature since your first post. None of the references mean
"brother-in-law." Do you ever bother to read contemporary medieval
English charters? Or, do you live in a total fantasy world?
On the contrary, it is you who inhabit a fantasy world - someone who doesn't
even know how many people are involved in "Willelmus domino", yet you
pretend to tell us from your extensive reading of Latin sources that you can
rule out an established meaning of "cognatus" from English usage in the 12th
century! I showed you that "cognatus" meant both brother-in-law and
father-in-law in highly important texts that were read throughout England
throughout the middle ages, and yet you still demur & try to crow about MY
error! Have you even bothered to read what Sir Donald Bullough had to say
about this in his paper "Early Medieval Social Groupings: The Terminology of
Kinship'? Or Anita Guerreau-Jalabert in her 'La désignation des relations et
des groupes de parenté en Latin médiéval'? Well, when you have, come and
tell us. Meanwhile my point about "cognatus" has been more than adequately
supported by the standard authorities, and I am NOT going to become your
research assistant.
And, how could we forget your self confessed "sketchy and incomplete
research" on the Barons of Malpas? Paul Bulkeley hasn't. Nor has
anyone else. Mr. Bulkeley had repeatedly asked for you to produce your
evidence. He's still waiting.
You said it yourself: "self-confessed" by me, my research on this wasn't
complete - and still isn't, due to the theft of the single copy in Australia
of one of the essential sources. I am not about to spend the considerable
cost of an international loan, if this could even be obtained for a rare
early 19th-century book, in order to finish some research at Bulkley's
bidding & convenience. Once again, I NEVER claimed that there was direct
evidence for the version of the Malpas inheritance given by Ormerod and
accepted by Keats-Roan - you have fallen for Bulkley's shameless lie about
this. I should have thought you were smarter than that, on the basis of "it
takes one to know one".
This is the typical Peter Stewart pattern: Wild allegations,
unsubstantiated statements, outrageous lies, sketchy and incomplete
research, bobbing, weaving, and much pettifogging. And, when all else
fails, resort to name calling.
No, all we have seen is a typical example of Douglas RIchardson trying to
evade a problem of his own making through preposterous misrepresentations
about someone else.
So much for "sound and tested" genealogy from Mr. Stewart. He's at the
end of his Reedy rope and there's no one to save him. Poor thing.
This is truly pitiful, and must make your few supporters squirm with
embarrassment at such a useless lie.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Marriage Date of Sir Alan Basset and Aline de Gay
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115513352.382893.237830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
So this "1191 charter of Alan Basset" is actually a document of Prior
Stephen dated by Reedy "?1182 x 91". That's a brilliant way to conduct a
newsgroup discussion: tell it like it isn't.
The document published by Reedy DOES NOT prove any such thing on its own -
that is why he didn't reach the conclusion that Alan had only one wife.
Reedy thought that "Alan was probably not lord of the manor of Wootton
Bassett [sic] until after the death of his father". It is only by comparing
the information in this with other evidence NOT published by Reedy that a
conclusion to the contrary can be drawn. Unless Reedy knew already, as
clearly he didn't, that Wootton had belonged to the Gai family, this
document could not indicate the fact.
And Mr Stewart NEVER alleged that Alan Basset was married to a wife named
Alice de Gray, but only that Reedy said so.
If you can't use the evidence of plain words to understand that, you can
have no hope of interpreting medieval documents in a language that is Double
Dutch to you.
Peter Stewart
news:1115513352.382893.237830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115498777.966189.38260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the "1191 charter of Alan Basset published by Reedy"?
Peter Stewart
The charter is found on page 163 of Mr. Reedy's book. Alan Basset's
name is included in the synopsis provided by Mr. Reedy. It is a
renunciation document issued by Stephen prior and the convent of
Monkton Farleigh, Wiltshire of their claims against Alan Basset
concerning the advowson of the church of Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire.
The document is endorsed in a 13th century hand as follows: Carta
prior' et conventus de Farleg' de ecclesia de Wuttune."
So this "1191 charter of Alan Basset" is actually a document of Prior
Stephen dated by Reedy "?1182 x 91". That's a brilliant way to conduct a
newsgroup discussion: tell it like it isn't.
Mr. Reedy has dated this charter as being sometime before 21 April
1191, when Prior Stephen's successor was deposed [Reference: Knowles,
Brooke, and London, Heads of Religious Houses, pg. 120]. Since Wootton
Bassett, Wiltshire was part of Aline de Gay's inheritance, this record
is good evidence that Sir Alan Basset and his wife, Aline de Gay, were
married sometime before 21 April 1191. Alan Basset would have no
interest in the advowson of the church of Wootton Bassett, except
through his wife, Aline. This record proves that Alan Basset was never
married to a wife named Alice de Gray, as alleged by Mr. Stewart.
Rather, Alan had but one known wife, Aline de Gay.
The document published by Reedy DOES NOT prove any such thing on its own -
that is why he didn't reach the conclusion that Alan had only one wife.
Reedy thought that "Alan was probably not lord of the manor of Wootton
Bassett [sic] until after the death of his father". It is only by comparing
the information in this with other evidence NOT published by Reedy that a
conclusion to the contrary can be drawn. Unless Reedy knew already, as
clearly he didn't, that Wootton had belonged to the Gai family, this
document could not indicate the fact.
And Mr Stewart NEVER alleged that Alan Basset was married to a wife named
Alice de Gray, but only that Reedy said so.
If you can't use the evidence of plain words to understand that, you can
have no hope of interpreting medieval documents in a language that is Double
Dutch to you.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
More name calling and excuses by Peter Stewart
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
Lying blow-hard? As usual, you resort to calling names when all else
fails. This is why we need a moderated group. You're unable to
contain yourself, Peter.
As you continue to explain yourself, it's apparent that you're unable
to figure out which end of the Reedy book is up! You've already
admitted you can't find the 1191 charter, nor can you decipher its
meaning. Perhaps you forgot to take your Latin dictionary to the
library with you the day you looked at the Reedy book. That would
explain a lot, Peter.
Again, this is more backtracking, waffling, bobbing, and weaving. We
all know what you said about Alice of France. It's in the archives. I
presented many pieces of contemporary evidence to prove Alice of
France's parentage. You cited someone from modern times as your
authority. This makes you look really stupid, Peter. This truly was a
stupendous error on your part. Now Mr. Parsons has shown that you're
wrong. How does it feel? Let me guess ... not good.
Mr. Parsons and I are in full agreement. Frankly, Peter, you're the
odd man out.
What research? You haven't done any. You have a Latin dictionary.
That's it. No wonder last week you confessed that "the study of
English families and manorial records bores" you "to stone." What a
stunning confession! Now I understand why you're unable to handle the
Reedy book. You think it's beneath you.
More bobbing and weaving. More insults. It's always this way with
you. Mr. Bulkeley has suffered your tantrums long enough. Now you
blame your "sketchy and incomplete research" on the theft of a book!
Egads, Peter, will your excuses never end?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
The post from Richardson below is a lurid catalogue of falsehoods,
just as I
expected from this lying blow-hard. Comments interspersed.
Lying blow-hard? As usual, you resort to calling names when all else
fails. This is why we need a moderated group. You're unable to
contain yourself, Peter.
You haven't established yet that there was any "1191 charter of Alan
Basset
published by Reedy", that I couldn't find in his book, so don't get
too far
ahead of yourself. Cite this properly, verifiably, then the question
will be
how did Reedy overlook the evidence in it: I cannot have "got it
wrong"
since I didn't reach any conclusion, or aim to, but only reminded (or
told
you for the first time apparently) what the standard reference work
on the
Basset family had to say about a matter YOU were researching, in your
usual
haphazard way.
As you continue to explain yourself, it's apparent that you're unable
to figure out which end of the Reedy book is up! You've already
admitted you can't find the 1191 charter, nor can you decipher its
meaning. Perhaps you forgot to take your Latin dictionary to the
library with you the day you looked at the Reedy book. That would
explain a lot, Peter.
Or, shall I remind you of your stupendous error about Alice of
France?
In recent time John Carmi Parsons has once again confirmed her
correct
parentage for us. Did you miss John Carmi Parsons' fine post?
Next
you'll be telling us that Parsons is a "fool," a "fraud," or, worse
still, a "Richardson groupie?" Will your outrageous behavior never
cease?
Yet again, I didn't make any "stupendous error" about this.
Again, this is more backtracking, waffling, bobbing, and weaving. We
all know what you said about Alice of France. It's in the archives. I
presented many pieces of contemporary evidence to prove Alice of
France's parentage. You cited someone from modern times as your
authority. This makes you look really stupid, Peter. This truly was a
stupendous error on your part. Now Mr. Parsons has shown that you're
wrong. How does it feel? Let me guess ... not good.
I have no difference of opinion with John Carmi
Parsons on this matter. The question that remains isn't about what I
think,
but about what led Delisle, Van Kerrebrouck and so many others to
think as
they did.
Mr. Parsons and I are in full agreement. Frankly, Peter, you're the
odd man out.
I am NOT going to become your research assistant.
What research? You haven't done any. You have a Latin dictionary.
That's it. No wonder last week you confessed that "the study of
English families and manorial records bores" you "to stone." What a
stunning confession! Now I understand why you're unable to handle the
Reedy book. You think it's beneath you.
You said it yourself: "self-confessed" by me, my research on this
wasn't
complete - and still isn't, due to the theft of the single copy in
Australia
of one of the essential sources. I am not about to spend the
considerable
cost of an international loan, if this could even be obtained for a
rare
early 19th-century book, in order to finish some research at
Bulkley's
bidding & convenience. Once again, I NEVER claimed that there was
direct
evidence for the version of the Malpas inheritance given by Ormerod
and
accepted by Keats-Roan - you have fallen for Bulkley's shameless lie
about
this. I should have thought you were smarter than that, on the basis
of "it
takes one to know one".
More bobbing and weaving. More insults. It's always this way with
you. Mr. Bulkeley has suffered your tantrums long enough. Now you
blame your "sketchy and incomplete research" on the theft of a book!
Egads, Peter, will your excuses never end?
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More name calling and excuses by Peter Stewart
Obviously he can't help himself. Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115525565.658746.62380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
On the contrary, as shown in the thread proper, Richardson was calling an
"1191 charter of Alan Basset" somehting that was nothing of the kind.
I have my own copy of Reedy's book, and Richardson got this plainly, flatly
and (I must assume since he won't let go of the falsehood) deliberately
WRONG.
<snip>
[re: Alice of France}
Good, then find what you think can justify your statements and post it.
Remember, we can all check the archive and any self-serving distorions on
your part will be exposed.
Total rubbish - none of your sources was exactly "contemporary" and in fact
none of them was equal in contemporaneity or other evidenciary value to the
French one I found for you. As to modern sources, I didn't rely on these as
authority for anything beyond the fact that they said what they said. There
was no stupidity, no error in this. John Parsons has not argued with
anything I wrote, and if he chooses to do this I will of course address his
comments - but in the mean time I'm sure that Richardson doesn't speak for
him.
<snip>
[I wrote, re: "cognatus"]
What unmitigated rubbish. The English gentry weren't different from anyone
else in their relationship terminology, and the fact that they bore me is
not a "stunning confession", just an ordinary statement of fact. The idea
that Reedy's book is "beneath" me is just too absurd to contemplate, much
less that I am somehow "unable to handle" this when Richardson himself is
the one who has blatantly misrepresented its contents.
My words were plain for all to see - the "sketchy and incomplete" comment
preceded my attempt to look into this further, when I discovered the book
was missing. It is NOT an excuse, just an explanation of why I haven't taken
this to a completion that I owe to nobody. Bulkley has lied about my
statements, flagrantly and consistently. i have nothing to prove, to him or
to the newsgroup - I stand by everything I have written about this.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115525565.658746.62380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
As you continue to explain yourself, it's apparent that you're unable
to figure out which end of the Reedy book is up! You've already
admitted you can't find the 1191 charter, nor can you decipher its
meaning. Perhaps you forgot to take your Latin dictionary to the
library with you the day you looked at the Reedy book. That would
explain a lot, Peter.
On the contrary, as shown in the thread proper, Richardson was calling an
"1191 charter of Alan Basset" somehting that was nothing of the kind.
I have my own copy of Reedy's book, and Richardson got this plainly, flatly
and (I must assume since he won't let go of the falsehood) deliberately
WRONG.
<snip>
[re: Alice of France}
Again, this is more backtracking, waffling, bobbing, and weaving. We
all know what you said about Alice of France. It's in the archives.
Good, then find what you think can justify your statements and post it.
Remember, we can all check the archive and any self-serving distorions on
your part will be exposed.
I presented many pieces of contemporary evidence to prove Alice of
France's parentage. You cited someone from modern times as your
authority. This makes you look really stupid, Peter. This truly was a
stupendous error on your part. Now Mr. Parsons has shown that you're
wrong. How does it feel? Let me guess ... not good.
Total rubbish - none of your sources was exactly "contemporary" and in fact
none of them was equal in contemporaneity or other evidenciary value to the
French one I found for you. As to modern sources, I didn't rely on these as
authority for anything beyond the fact that they said what they said. There
was no stupidity, no error in this. John Parsons has not argued with
anything I wrote, and if he chooses to do this I will of course address his
comments - but in the mean time I'm sure that Richardson doesn't speak for
him.
<snip>
[I wrote, re: "cognatus"]
I am NOT going to become your research assistant.
What research? You haven't done any. You have a Latin dictionary.
That's it. No wonder last week you confessed that "the study of
English families and manorial records bores" you "to stone." What a
stunning confession! Now I understand why you're unable to handle the
Reedy book. You think it's beneath you.
What unmitigated rubbish. The English gentry weren't different from anyone
else in their relationship terminology, and the fact that they bore me is
not a "stunning confession", just an ordinary statement of fact. The idea
that Reedy's book is "beneath" me is just too absurd to contemplate, much
less that I am somehow "unable to handle" this when Richardson himself is
the one who has blatantly misrepresented its contents.
You said it yourself: "self-confessed" by me, my research on this
wasn't
complete - and still isn't, due to the theft of the single copy in
Australia
of one of the essential sources. I am not about to spend the
considerable
cost of an international loan, if this could even be obtained for a
rare
early 19th-century book, in order to finish some research at
Bulkley's
bidding & convenience. Once again, I NEVER claimed that there was
direct
evidence for the version of the Malpas inheritance given by Ormerod
and
accepted by Keats-Roan - you have fallen for Bulkley's shameless lie
about
this. I should have thought you were smarter than that, on the basis
of "it
takes one to know one".
More bobbing and weaving. More insults. It's always this way with
you. Mr. Bulkeley has suffered your tantrums long enough. Now you
blame your "sketchy and incomplete research" on the theft of a book!
Egads, Peter, will your excuses never end?
My words were plain for all to see - the "sketchy and incomplete" comment
preceded my attempt to look into this further, when I discovered the book
was missing. It is NOT an excuse, just an explanation of why I haven't taken
this to a completion that I owe to nobody. Bulkley has lied about my
statements, flagrantly and consistently. i have nothing to prove, to him or
to the newsgroup - I stand by everything I have written about this.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: More name calling and excuses by Peter Stewart
In message of 8 May, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
This has now been said originally by you and later by various others
several times.
It has been pointed out:
(a) That this requires a set of actions to implement.
(b) None of the proponents have engaged in any public discussion about
what they should do.
(c) No-one has done anything (that they have reported to the
newsgroup).
My conclusion is that nothing is going to happen because the people,
yourself included, who appear to want the change have decided not to do
anything.
So it would help all of us if this repeated wish for a moderated group
were withdrawn from our discussions.
(Unless, that is, you or someone is going to actually do something.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
This is why we need a moderated group.
This has now been said originally by you and later by various others
several times.
It has been pointed out:
(a) That this requires a set of actions to implement.
(b) None of the proponents have engaged in any public discussion about
what they should do.
(c) No-one has done anything (that they have reported to the
newsgroup).
My conclusion is that nothing is going to happen because the people,
yourself included, who appear to want the change have decided not to do
anything.
So it would help all of us if this repeated wish for a moderated group
were withdrawn from our discussions.
(Unless, that is, you or someone is going to actually do something.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Marriage Date of Sir Alan Basset and Aline de Gay
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
I posted an abstract of the 1191 charter for Alan Basset on April 26,
2005 with the correct date and the correct page number in Reedy. The
following day you posted the following:
"Thank you for a good post."
If you're having a problem finding the charter now, this is quite
disconcerting. Are you all there, Peter?
Mr. Reedy obviously wasn't aware that Wootton Basset, Wiltshire was
part of Aline de Gay's inheritance. But I posted that information in
2002, 2004, and again in 2005 here on the newsgroup. So, YOU should
have caught it but you didn't. Why is that, Peter? You claim to be
the epitome of "sound, tested information." Yet, you keep getting it
all wrong. Frankly I'm worried about you.
Actually you were attempting to embarrass me by citing Reedy as a
supposed reliable source. You called him "the current authority on the
Basset family." This is a typical devious maneuver on your part. Your
mistake was trusting Reedy, not me. When you bet on the wrong horse,
Peter, you can't blame anyone but yourself.
Actually the original Alan Basset charter is in Latin, not Dutch. But
that is a trivial point. At this point I have more hope for a
beginning genealogist than I do for you. At least their brain isn't
full of mush.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
So this "1191 charter of Alan Basset" is actually a document of Prior
Stephen dated by Reedy "?1182 x 91". That's a brilliant way to
conduct a
newsgroup discussion: tell it like it isn't.
I posted an abstract of the 1191 charter for Alan Basset on April 26,
2005 with the correct date and the correct page number in Reedy. The
following day you posted the following:
"Thank you for a good post."
If you're having a problem finding the charter now, this is quite
disconcerting. Are you all there, Peter?
The document published by Reedy DOES NOT prove any such thing on its
own -
that is why he didn't reach the conclusion that Alan had only one
wife.
Reedy thought that "Alan was probably not lord of the manor of
Wootton
Bassett [sic] until after the death of his father". It is only by
comparing
the information in this with other evidence NOT published by Reedy
that a
conclusion to the contrary can be drawn. Unless Reedy knew already,
as
clearly he didn't, that Wootton had belonged to the Gai family, this
document could not indicate the fact.
Mr. Reedy obviously wasn't aware that Wootton Basset, Wiltshire was
part of Aline de Gay's inheritance. But I posted that information in
2002, 2004, and again in 2005 here on the newsgroup. So, YOU should
have caught it but you didn't. Why is that, Peter? You claim to be
the epitome of "sound, tested information." Yet, you keep getting it
all wrong. Frankly I'm worried about you.
And Mr Stewart NEVER alleged that Alan Basset was married to a wife
named
Alice de Gray, but only that Reedy said so.
Actually you were attempting to embarrass me by citing Reedy as a
supposed reliable source. You called him "the current authority on the
Basset family." This is a typical devious maneuver on your part. Your
mistake was trusting Reedy, not me. When you bet on the wrong horse,
Peter, you can't blame anyone but yourself.
If you can't use the evidence of plain words to understand that, you
can
have no hope of interpreting medieval documents in a language that is
Double
Dutch to you.
Actually the original Alan Basset charter is in Latin, not Dutch. But
that is a trivial point. At this point I have more hope for a
beginning genealogist than I do for you. At least their brain isn't
full of mush.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Marriage Date of Sir Alan Basset and Aline de Gay
Ho hum. Educating a determined moron in basic commonsense is hard, tedious
work. Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115566836.104537.98440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You described an "1191 charter of Alan Basset published by Reedy" and taking
you at your word (the most foolish thing I have done in this matter) I
couldn't find any such thing. And lo & behold, there IS no such thing.
Your earlier post didn't misrepresent this in the same way, so is quite
irrelevant.
I probably did't read your posts on this in 2002 and 2004 - odd that you
didn't bring these up before when challenged to provide clear proof for your
views in 2005.
As for what has transpirred in this thread, it has come up with good
evidence to amend Reedy's information on the point. That is good and I've
given due credit for this. It doesn't however give you license to reinvent
the past on SGM trying to make out that I said things that I definitely
didn't.
Again trying to judge others by your own failings. I wasn't "trying to
embarrass" you on this point - when appropriate to show up your
deficiencies, it doesn't actually take much in the way of effort, and
certainly I don't leave you or the newsgroup wondering about it. In this
instance I pointed out, as you should have done yourself if engaged in
responsible scholarship, that the standard work on the Basset family stated
contrary views.
It is your paranoia, not my supposed gloating, that caused this problem.
If you don't know the phrase "Double Dutch", look it up in a dictionary. O,
how careless of me - I was forgetting that you consider dictionaries useless
for settling the definitions of words. What exactly do you admit they are
good for?
Peter Stewart
work. Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115566836.104537.98440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
So this "1191 charter of Alan Basset" is actually a document of Prior
Stephen dated by Reedy "?1182 x 91". That's a brilliant way to
conduct a
newsgroup discussion: tell it like it isn't.
I posted an abstract of the 1191 charter for Alan Basset on April 26,
2005 with the correct date and the correct page number in Reedy. The
following day you posted the following:
"Thank you for a good post."
If you're having a problem finding the charter now, this is quite
disconcerting. Are you all there, Peter?
You described an "1191 charter of Alan Basset published by Reedy" and taking
you at your word (the most foolish thing I have done in this matter) I
couldn't find any such thing. And lo & behold, there IS no such thing.
Your earlier post didn't misrepresent this in the same way, so is quite
irrelevant.
The document published by Reedy DOES NOT prove any such thing on its
own -
that is why he didn't reach the conclusion that Alan had only one
wife.
Reedy thought that "Alan was probably not lord of the manor of
Wootton
Bassett [sic] until after the death of his father". It is only by
comparing
the information in this with other evidence NOT published by Reedy
that a
conclusion to the contrary can be drawn. Unless Reedy knew already,
as
clearly he didn't, that Wootton had belonged to the Gai family, this
document could not indicate the fact.
Mr. Reedy obviously wasn't aware that Wootton Basset, Wiltshire was
part of Aline de Gay's inheritance. But I posted that information in
2002, 2004, and again in 2005 here on the newsgroup. So, YOU should
have caught it but you didn't. Why is that, Peter? You claim to be
the epitome of "sound, tested information." Yet, you keep getting it
all wrong. Frankly I'm worried about you.
I probably did't read your posts on this in 2002 and 2004 - odd that you
didn't bring these up before when challenged to provide clear proof for your
views in 2005.
As for what has transpirred in this thread, it has come up with good
evidence to amend Reedy's information on the point. That is good and I've
given due credit for this. It doesn't however give you license to reinvent
the past on SGM trying to make out that I said things that I definitely
didn't.
And Mr Stewart NEVER alleged that Alan Basset was married to a wife
named
Alice de Gray, but only that Reedy said so.
Actually you were attempting to embarrass me by citing Reedy as a
supposed reliable source. You called him "the current authority on the
Basset family." This is a typical devious maneuver on your part. Your
mistake was trusting Reedy, not me. When you bet on the wrong horse,
Peter, you can't blame anyone but yourself.
Again trying to judge others by your own failings. I wasn't "trying to
embarrass" you on this point - when appropriate to show up your
deficiencies, it doesn't actually take much in the way of effort, and
certainly I don't leave you or the newsgroup wondering about it. In this
instance I pointed out, as you should have done yourself if engaged in
responsible scholarship, that the standard work on the Basset family stated
contrary views.
It is your paranoia, not my supposed gloating, that caused this problem.
If you can't use the evidence of plain words to understand that, you
can
have no hope of interpreting medieval documents in a language that is
Double
Dutch to you.
Actually the original Alan Basset charter is in Latin, not Dutch. But
that is a trivial point. At this point I have more hope for a
beginning genealogist than I do for you. At least their brain isn't
full of mush.
If you don't know the phrase "Double Dutch", look it up in a dictionary. O,
how careless of me - I was forgetting that you consider dictionaries useless
for settling the definitions of words. What exactly do you admit they are
good for?
Peter Stewart