revisiting this group
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Di Allen
revisiting this group
It's disappointing, having not browsed this group for a long while
that the first message I see is abusive .. some people don't seem to
have a real life it seems - good luck though to the rest of you
though at just want to further their knowledge and share an interest.
Diana
that the first message I see is abusive .. some people don't seem to
have a real life it seems - good luck though to the rest of you
though at just want to further their knowledge and share an interest.
Diana
-
John Brandon
Re: revisiting this group
good luck though to the rest of you
though at just want to further their knowledge and share an interest.
Looking over most of the posts today, I was thinking to myself, "What a
bunch of self-righteous nonsense!" But the quote above *literally* is
self-righteous nonsense.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Sharing an interest - or is it?
John Brandon wrote:
You're right on the money, John. When Diana says she is a person who
wants to "further their knowledge and share an interest," she means she
wants to lurk in the background and obtain information for free without
offering any help herself.
I checked the archives just now. As best I could tell, Diana has
posted five times on the medieval genealogy newsgroup in the last six
years. That's less than once a year. Her posts contain requests for
help, not information for others. This is hardly a person who wants to
"share an interest." Rather, it is almost exclusively a one-way street
going Diana's way.
Lurkers like Diana seem to feel that the newsgroup owes them free
information, along with the right to critize anyone they like. I
disagree with both positions. If someone is going to criticize, they
should be posting regularly right along with everyone else.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
good luck though to the rest of you
though at just want to further their knowledge and share an interest.
Looking over most of the posts today, I was thinking to myself, "What a
bunch of self-righteous nonsense!" But the quote above *literally* is
self-righteous nonsense.
You're right on the money, John. When Diana says she is a person who
wants to "further their knowledge and share an interest," she means she
wants to lurk in the background and obtain information for free without
offering any help herself.
I checked the archives just now. As best I could tell, Diana has
posted five times on the medieval genealogy newsgroup in the last six
years. That's less than once a year. Her posts contain requests for
help, not information for others. This is hardly a person who wants to
"share an interest." Rather, it is almost exclusively a one-way street
going Diana's way.
Lurkers like Diana seem to feel that the newsgroup owes them free
information, along with the right to critize anyone they like. I
disagree with both positions. If someone is going to criticize, they
should be posting regularly right along with everyone else.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Pogues On The Run
Yep....
What a clique of envious, self-righteous cowards, whiners,
hand-wringers, web-spinners, teeth-gnashers and shrinking violets.
Pogues On The Run....
Not A Gram Of Substance In A Boxcarload Of Them.
Entertaining, However.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120774554.328296.18940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >>good luck though to the rest of you
| though at [sic] just want to further their knowledge and share an
| interest.
|
|
| Looking over most of the posts today, I was thinking to myself, "What
| a bunch of self-righteous nonsense!" But the quote above *literally*
| is self-righteous nonsense.
What a clique of envious, self-righteous cowards, whiners,
hand-wringers, web-spinners, teeth-gnashers and shrinking violets.
Pogues On The Run....
Not A Gram Of Substance In A Boxcarload Of Them.
Entertaining, However.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120774554.328296.18940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >>good luck though to the rest of you
| though at [sic] just want to further their knowledge and share an
| interest.
|
|
| Looking over most of the posts today, I was thinking to myself, "What
| a bunch of self-righteous nonsense!" But the quote above *literally*
| is self-righteous nonsense.
-
fairthorne
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
I don't know anything about Diana but can describe my position
I'm a lurker in this newsgroup, picking up information but not contributing
why?
because I am a complete and utter novice in this period and (to my regret)
do not have enough time (nor ability) to reach a level at which I could
usefully contribute
I can and do offer help and information but not in this area
so in this newsgroup I'm a sponge, but over all newsgroups I think that the
flow in and flow out balance each other
I suspect many of the members of the newsgroup are in a similar position
cheers
Simon
I'm a lurker in this newsgroup, picking up information but not contributing
why?
because I am a complete and utter novice in this period and (to my regret)
do not have enough time (nor ability) to reach a level at which I could
usefully contribute
I can and do offer help and information but not in this area
so in this newsgroup I'm a sponge, but over all newsgroups I think that the
flow in and flow out balance each other
I suspect many of the members of the newsgroup are in a similar position
cheers
Simon
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
Douglas Richardson wrote:
If anyone wants to criticise, they should be prepared to make this
specific and to back it up - that's all. Once a reader engages in this
way, he or she is no longer a lurker anyway but a participant.
WHY should someone who feels a need to criticise on one score have to
contribute differently on another? If you think you have an authority
to make such arbitrary statements criticising someone who posted in
good faith, WHY shouldn't Diana think she has too?
Peter Stewart
Lurkers like Diana seem to feel that the newsgroup owes them free
information, along with the right to critize anyone they like. I
disagree with both positions. If someone is going to criticize, they
should be posting regularly right along with everyone else.
If anyone wants to criticise, they should be prepared to make this
specific and to back it up - that's all. Once a reader engages in this
way, he or she is no longer a lurker anyway but a participant.
WHY should someone who feels a need to criticise on one score have to
contribute differently on another? If you think you have an authority
to make such arbitrary statements criticising someone who posted in
good faith, WHY shouldn't Diana think she has too?
Peter Stewart
-
Family Historian
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
Simon said ---I'm a lurker in this newsgroup, picking up information but not
contributing
why?
because I am a complete and utter novice in this period and (to my regret)
do not have enough time (nor ability) to reach a level at which I could
usefully contribute---
And I also am in the same situation. I also DO contribute to other lists.
I am on over 100 lists and cannot know enough to be an expert on every one.
So, if a sponge I am, thank you for your help; a non-contributor, I am
sorry.
We can't all be experts in everything. At least I can't.
Ed Crabtree - Missouri, USA
familyhistorian@kc.rr.com
All outgoing messages checked by McAfee VirusScan
contributing
why?
because I am a complete and utter novice in this period and (to my regret)
do not have enough time (nor ability) to reach a level at which I could
usefully contribute---
And I also am in the same situation. I also DO contribute to other lists.
I am on over 100 lists and cannot know enough to be an expert on every one.
So, if a sponge I am, thank you for your help; a non-contributor, I am
sorry.
We can't all be experts in everything. At least I can't.
Ed Crabtree - Missouri, USA
familyhistorian@kc.rr.com
All outgoing messages checked by McAfee VirusScan
-
Mark B
Lurkers of the World Unite! (OT)
--- "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
[Snip]
I don't know Diana and won't try to speak for her or
lurkers like her, but lurkers like me believe the
newsgroup owes us nothing. As it so happens, the
newsgroup does provide “free information,” useful and
otherwise. It also at times provides advertisements
for not-so-free sources of information. Lurkers like
me read posts when we have spare time or when a
heading interests us. (Sometimes I'm even amused by
the rants, the petty squabbling, and the utterly
inconsequential pseudo-intellectual oneupsmanship
waged by the characters here. You guys are a hoot! The
oh-so-earnest demands for apologies are a particular
favorite of mine.)
Back to us lurkers: We post when we feel like it,
which for me is rarely. The right to “criticize anyone
[we] like” is guaranteed (at least in the U.S., and
with certain limitations) by the First Amendment. As
far as I can tell, this is an open forum for anyone to
participate in, use, or ignore as they see fit (within
the bounds of copyright and other applicable laws).
Sorry, but your disagreement with these facts is
inconsequential and does not change them. So far as I
can tell further, there are no obligations; no
warranty is intended or implied.
Oh, and I'll save you a little time. This is my 19th
post here since 2001. A few (like this one) fit with,
if not a majority, then a solid minority of the
posts—they were off-topic. Several others requested
information. Not that I felt said information was owed
to me, but that if others had answers to my questions
and were inclined to share that was nice. Several of
my posts were responses to the questions of others.
Sure, I could participate more, but I'm not sure to
what ends. To be perfectly honest, my competence on
the vast majority of the on-topic subjects discussed
here is surpassed by that of other members. If anyone
is interested in the Brisco family of Cumberland
county, England and other collateral and associated
Cumberland and Westmorland families from circa 1400 to
1600 I might just be your man, and I'd be happy to
help. Hell, I'd even give you my research for
inclusion in your next book if only my immigrant
ancestors had made their way to America a couple of
hundred years earlier.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
[Snip]
Lurkers like Diana seem to feel that the newsgroup
owes them free
information, along with the right to critize anyone
they like. I
disagree with both positions. If someone is going
to criticize, they
should be posting regularly right along with
everyone else.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City,
Utah
I don't know Diana and won't try to speak for her or
lurkers like her, but lurkers like me believe the
newsgroup owes us nothing. As it so happens, the
newsgroup does provide “free information,” useful and
otherwise. It also at times provides advertisements
for not-so-free sources of information. Lurkers like
me read posts when we have spare time or when a
heading interests us. (Sometimes I'm even amused by
the rants, the petty squabbling, and the utterly
inconsequential pseudo-intellectual oneupsmanship
waged by the characters here. You guys are a hoot! The
oh-so-earnest demands for apologies are a particular
favorite of mine.)
Back to us lurkers: We post when we feel like it,
which for me is rarely. The right to “criticize anyone
[we] like” is guaranteed (at least in the U.S., and
with certain limitations) by the First Amendment. As
far as I can tell, this is an open forum for anyone to
participate in, use, or ignore as they see fit (within
the bounds of copyright and other applicable laws).
Sorry, but your disagreement with these facts is
inconsequential and does not change them. So far as I
can tell further, there are no obligations; no
warranty is intended or implied.
Oh, and I'll save you a little time. This is my 19th
post here since 2001. A few (like this one) fit with,
if not a majority, then a solid minority of the
posts—they were off-topic. Several others requested
information. Not that I felt said information was owed
to me, but that if others had answers to my questions
and were inclined to share that was nice. Several of
my posts were responses to the questions of others.
Sure, I could participate more, but I'm not sure to
what ends. To be perfectly honest, my competence on
the vast majority of the on-topic subjects discussed
here is surpassed by that of other members. If anyone
is interested in the Brisco family of Cumberland
county, England and other collateral and associated
Cumberland and Westmorland families from circa 1400 to
1600 I might just be your man, and I'd be happy to
help. Hell, I'd even give you my research for
inclusion in your next book if only my immigrant
ancestors had made their way to America a couple of
hundred years earlier.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
"obtain information for free without offering any help herself."
Why should she not "obtain information for free without offering any
help herself?"
I seem to remember a period when you, Douglas, spent most of your time
sucking up free information from other list users without offering any
worthwhile help in return.
Tony Ingham
AUSTRALIA
John Brandon wrote:
good luck though to the rest of you
though at just want to further their knowledge and share an interest.
Looking over most of the posts today, I was thinking to myself, "What a
bunch of self-righteous nonsense!" But the quote above *literally* is
self-righteous nonsense.
You're right on the money, John. When Diana says she is a person who
wants to "further their knowledge and share an interest," she means she
wants to lurk in the background and obtain information for free without
offering any help herself.
What a despicable person Diana must be! Fancy having the temerity to
"obtain information for free without offering any help herself."
Why should she not "obtain information for free without offering any
help herself?"
I seem to remember a period when you, Douglas, spent most of your time
sucking up free information from other list users without offering any
worthwhile help in return.
Tony Ingham
AUSTRALIA
I checked the archives just now. As best I could tell, Diana has
posted five times on the medieval genealogy newsgroup in the last six
years. That's less than once a year. Her posts contain requests for
help, not information for others. This is hardly a person who wants to
"share an interest." Rather, it is almost exclusively a one-way street
going Diana's way.
Lurkers like Diana seem to feel that the newsgroup owes them free
information, along with the right to critize anyone they like. I
disagree with both positions. If someone is going to criticize, they
should be posting regularly right along with everyone else.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
Dear Simon ~
Your response sounds quite reasonable to me. Thank you for sharing
your thoughts with the newsgroup. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"fairthorne" wrote:
Your response sounds quite reasonable to me. Thank you for sharing
your thoughts with the newsgroup. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"fairthorne" wrote:
I don't know anything about Diana but can describe my position
I'm a lurker in this newsgroup, picking up information but not contributing
why?
because I am a complete and utter novice in this period and (to my regret)
do not have enough time (nor ability) to reach a level at which I could
usefully contribute
I can and do offer help and information but not in this area
so in this newsgroup I'm a sponge, but over all newsgroups I think that the
flow in and flow out balance each other
I suspect many of the members of the newsgroup are in a similar position
cheers
Simon
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Lurkers of the World Unite! (OT)
Mark B wrote:
Actually, Mark, I'm quite sincere about my request that Peter Stewart
apologize for his remarks about Dr. David Kelley, FASG. I have a very
high opinion of Dr. Kelley. He's a distinguished genealogist who
deserves our respect and praise. For Mr. Stewart to call Dr. Kelley
an "idiot" and "Tweedledum" is way out of line.
Some people should be treated with honor and accord. Dr. Kelley is
such a person.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
You guys are a hoot! The oh-so-earnest demands for apologies are a particular
favorite of mine.)
Actually, Mark, I'm quite sincere about my request that Peter Stewart
apologize for his remarks about Dr. David Kelley, FASG. I have a very
high opinion of Dr. Kelley. He's a distinguished genealogist who
deserves our respect and praise. For Mr. Stewart to call Dr. Kelley
an "idiot" and "Tweedledum" is way out of line.
Some people should be treated with honor and accord. Dr. Kelley is
such a person.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Calling a pot black
Dear Tony ~
Diana is NOT a despicable person. For you to say such a thing about
her is unfortunate, even if you meant it only in sarcasm.
Please keep it civil, Tony. We don't to agree with each other, but we
do have to get along. Remember the pot you call black is probably your
own kettle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
Diana is NOT a despicable person. For you to say such a thing about
her is unfortunate, even if you meant it only in sarcasm.
Please keep it civil, Tony. We don't to agree with each other, but we
do have to get along. Remember the pot you call black is probably your
own kettle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
What a despicable person Diana must be! Fancy having the temerity to
"obtain information for free without offering any help herself."
Why should she not "obtain information for free without offering any
help herself?"
I seem to remember a period when you, Douglas, spent most of your time
sucking up free information from other list users without offering any
worthwhile help in return.
Tony Ingham
AUSTRALIA
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Calling a pot black
Dear Tony ~
Diana is NOT a despicable person. For you to say such a thing about
her is unfortunate, even if you meant it only in sarcasm.
Please keep it civil, Tony. We don't have to agree with each other,
but we
do have to get along. Remember the pot you call black is probably your
own kettle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
Diana is NOT a despicable person. For you to say such a thing about
her is unfortunate, even if you meant it only in sarcasm.
Please keep it civil, Tony. We don't have to agree with each other,
but we
do have to get along. Remember the pot you call black is probably your
own kettle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
What a despicable person Diana must be! Fancy having the temerity to
"obtain information for free without offering any help herself."
Why should she not "obtain information for free without offering any
help herself?"
I seem to remember a period when you, Douglas, spent most of your time
sucking up free information from other list users without offering any
worthwhile help in return.
Tony Ingham
AUSTRALIA
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
"Tony Ingham" <nugget10@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:42CDE825.4020402@hotkey.net.au...
<snip>
Quite so, Tony - I wonder if D. Spencer Hines remembers this too.
Just to remind him, below my signature is copied a post of his dated 13
November 2003. Perhaps he would care to comment on it now.
Peter Stewart
From: From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spencer_Hi...@usa.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:46:45
Subject: Re: Fw: King Alley Cat
Yep.... Richardson's bluffing ---- as usual.
He hasn't done a lick of solid work on this -- so he wants to convene a
thread on one of the most important topics and hyped selling points ----
Illegitimate Descents From The Plantagenets ---- in his [long] projected
book, PA3 -- a topic not treated in-depth in either David Faris's PA1 or
PA2.
Then Richardson wants to attract a gaggle of no-cost-to-him research
assistants to do the basic scut work for him and separate the sheep from
the goats ---- Valid Royal Bastards from Invalids.
Having collected a mound of tailored, digitized SGM data, Richardson
wants to snip it, slice it, and dice it ---- then put it in his
manuscript ---- and sell it back to the very people who have naively
provided it to him gratis.
Sweet Game ---- if he can find enough hard-working, competent,
knowledgeable fools to play it with him.
D. Spencer Hines
news:42CDE825.4020402@hotkey.net.au...
<snip>
I seem to remember a period when you, Douglas, spent most of your time
sucking up free information from other list users without offering any
worthwhile help in return.
Quite so, Tony - I wonder if D. Spencer Hines remembers this too.
Just to remind him, below my signature is copied a post of his dated 13
November 2003. Perhaps he would care to comment on it now.
Peter Stewart
From: From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spencer_Hi...@usa.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:46:45
Subject: Re: Fw: King Alley Cat
Yep.... Richardson's bluffing ---- as usual.
He hasn't done a lick of solid work on this -- so he wants to convene a
thread on one of the most important topics and hyped selling points ----
Illegitimate Descents From The Plantagenets ---- in his [long] projected
book, PA3 -- a topic not treated in-depth in either David Faris's PA1 or
PA2.
Then Richardson wants to attract a gaggle of no-cost-to-him research
assistants to do the basic scut work for him and separate the sheep from
the goats ---- Valid Royal Bastards from Invalids.
Having collected a mound of tailored, digitized SGM data, Richardson
wants to snip it, slice it, and dice it ---- then put it in his
manuscript ---- and sell it back to the very people who have naively
provided it to him gratis.
Sweet Game ---- if he can find enough hard-working, competent,
knowledgeable fools to play it with him.
D. Spencer Hines
-
John Brandon
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
Some people are able to change their minds, Lord Peter. Try it, you
might like it.
might like it.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120829824.955120.63260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hines is indeed changeable. Perhaps he will regale us with an explanation of
his gross misjudgement, then or now.....
I see you are still fantasising about me and aristocracy. Truly pitiful.
Peter Stewart
news:1120829824.955120.63260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Some people are able to change their minds, Lord Peter. Try it, you
might like it.
Hines is indeed changeable. Perhaps he will regale us with an explanation of
his gross misjudgement, then or now.....
I see you are still fantasising about me and aristocracy. Truly pitiful.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
I see you are still fantasising about me and aristocracy. Truly pitiful.
Peter, of course I am utterly fascinated by you and would like to know
exactly how you descend from the Cavendish/ Devonshires. Any
information gratefullly received!
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
Peter Stewart wrote:
Speaking of explanations, you still have not explained to the newsgroup
your gross misjudgement about my position about Geoffrey of
Boulogne/Godfrey of Bouillon. You have no right to misrepresent me.
None at all.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Hines is indeed changeable. Perhaps he will regale us with an explanation of
his gross misjudgement, then or now.....
Peter Stewart
Speaking of explanations, you still have not explained to the newsgroup
your gross misjudgement about my position about Geoffrey of
Boulogne/Godfrey of Bouillon. You have no right to misrepresent me.
None at all.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Peter Stewart's Descent From The Cavendish/Devonshires
It seems it may well be an illegitimate, or otherwise tainted,
descent -- hence Peter's unwillingness to discuss it.
He told me his mother made him promise never to reveal his Ancestry.
As to Douglas Richardson, of course I criticized him in the past -- and
Douglas then turned over a new leaf.
I'm always happy to see that -- and if I played some role in Douglas
Richardson's conversion to virtue and turning towards the light --
thereby producing a good work product and providing for his six
children -- I'm happy to have been of service.
Deus Vult.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120832167.917134.241570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >I see you are still fantasising about me and aristocracy. Truly
| >pitiful.
|
| Peter, of course I am utterly fascinated by you and would like to know
| exactly how you descend from the Cavendish/ Devonshires. Any
| information gratefullly received!
descent -- hence Peter's unwillingness to discuss it.
He told me his mother made him promise never to reveal his Ancestry.
As to Douglas Richardson, of course I criticized him in the past -- and
Douglas then turned over a new leaf.
I'm always happy to see that -- and if I played some role in Douglas
Richardson's conversion to virtue and turning towards the light --
thereby producing a good work product and providing for his six
children -- I'm happy to have been of service.
Deus Vult.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120832167.917134.241570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >I see you are still fantasising about me and aristocracy. Truly
| >pitiful.
|
| Peter, of course I am utterly fascinated by you and would like to know
| exactly how you descend from the Cavendish/ Devonshires. Any
| information gratefullly received!
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1120836927.673348.191670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There is nothing for me to explain - the AR editors MAY have misrepresented
you (we don't have any means of knowing for sure) but anyone else was
PERFECTLY entitled to rely on a very public record that YOU had left
unchallenged for years.
Once again, YOU have ALL the explaining to do on this question. Sheppard is
dead, and you have sought to disparage him. However, you have not explained
why you didn't rectify any lie or mistake on his part in this matter long
ago.
Preposterous charges against me won't get you off this hook.
Peter Stewart
news:1120836927.673348.191670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Hines is indeed changeable. Perhaps he will regale us with an explanation
of
his gross misjudgement, then or now.....
Peter Stewart
Speaking of explanations, you still have not explained to the newsgroup
your gross misjudgement about my position about Geoffrey of
Boulogne/Godfrey of Bouillon. You have no right to misrepresent me.
None at all.
There is nothing for me to explain - the AR editors MAY have misrepresented
you (we don't have any means of knowing for sure) but anyone else was
PERFECTLY entitled to rely on a very public record that YOU had left
unchallenged for years.
Once again, YOU have ALL the explaining to do on this question. Sheppard is
dead, and you have sought to disparage him. However, you have not explained
why you didn't rectify any lie or mistake on his part in this matter long
ago.
Preposterous charges against me won't get you off this hook.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sharing an interest - or is it?
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120832167.917134.241570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This isn't medieval and it can be of no legitimate interest to the
newsgroup - however, I don't intend to start a private correspondence with
Brandon and in the hope that this will shut him up:
The descent is from William Cavendish, 4th duke of Devonshire (died 1764)
and Charlotte Boyle, baroness Clifford (died 1754).
Peter Stewart
news:1120832167.917134.241570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I see you are still fantasising about me and aristocracy. Truly pitiful.
Peter, of course I am utterly fascinated by you and would like to know
exactly how you descend from the Cavendish/ Devonshires. Any
information gratefullly received!
This isn't medieval and it can be of no legitimate interest to the
newsgroup - however, I don't intend to start a private correspondence with
Brandon and in the hope that this will shut him up:
The descent is from William Cavendish, 4th duke of Devonshire (died 1764)
and Charlotte Boyle, baroness Clifford (died 1754).
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Descent From The Cavendish/Devonshires
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SCyze.452$4H2.2881@eagle.america.net...
The decent is legitimate and not on my mother's side. The promise Hines is
flagrantly misrepresenting relates only to a person who died young and in
most unhappy circumstances in Hawaii (where miserable people go to die,
apparently). It has nothing whatsoever to do with this matter.
Balderdash - you characterised his methods of collecting material for an
important section of something you called "PA3". This was in November 2003.
If you were right then, his duplicitous working methods must mean that he
CANNOT deserve the lavish praise and congratulations that recently you have
been trying to lay on with an industrial trowel.
Now you say that his work is NOT a revision of PA2 and that only a
brain-bollixed loon would call it "PA3".
Unless you can prove that Richardson threw out all his research after
November 2003 and started again from scratch, producing a different book
from that point on his own unaided efforts (apart from any appropriate
acknowledements), you are clearly talking at cross-purposes with yourself.
But why should that surprise us when you pretend to know Latin without
recognising a deponent verb?
Peter Stewart
news:SCyze.452$4H2.2881@eagle.america.net...
It seems it may well be an illegitimate, or otherwise tainted,
descent -- hence Peter's unwillingness to discuss it.
He told me his mother made him promise never to reveal his Ancestry.
The decent is legitimate and not on my mother's side. The promise Hines is
flagrantly misrepresenting relates only to a person who died young and in
most unhappy circumstances in Hawaii (where miserable people go to die,
apparently). It has nothing whatsoever to do with this matter.
As to Douglas Richardson, of course I criticized him in the past -- and
Douglas then turned over a new leaf.
I'm always happy to see that -- and if I played some role in Douglas
Richardson's conversion to virtue and turning towards the light --
thereby producing a good work product and providing for his six
children -- I'm happy to have been of service.
Balderdash - you characterised his methods of collecting material for an
important section of something you called "PA3". This was in November 2003.
If you were right then, his duplicitous working methods must mean that he
CANNOT deserve the lavish praise and congratulations that recently you have
been trying to lay on with an industrial trowel.
Now you say that his work is NOT a revision of PA2 and that only a
brain-bollixed loon would call it "PA3".
Unless you can prove that Richardson threw out all his research after
November 2003 and started again from scratch, producing a different book
from that point on his own unaided efforts (apart from any appropriate
acknowledements), you are clearly talking at cross-purposes with yourself.
But why should that surprise us when you pretend to know Latin without
recognising a deponent verb?
Peter Stewart
Deus Vult.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120832167.917134.241570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >I see you are still fantasising about me and aristocracy. Truly
| >pitiful.
|
| Peter, of course I am utterly fascinated by you and would like to know
| exactly how you descend from the Cavendish/ Devonshires. Any
| information gratefullly received!
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Calling a pot black
Douglas,
I fail to see where I have been uncivil. I merely felt that a sponger,
such as you are, had no right to crit[ic]ize
anyone for seeking free information.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
I fail to see where I have been uncivil. I merely felt that a sponger,
such as you are, had no right to crit[ic]ize
anyone for seeking free information.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Tony ~
Diana is NOT a despicable person. For you to say such a thing about
her is unfortunate, even if you meant it only in sarcasm.
Please keep it civil, Tony. We don't to agree with each other, but we
do have to get along. Remember the pot you call black is probably your
own kettle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
What a despicable person Diana must be! Fancy having the temerity to
"obtain information for free without offering any help herself."
Why should she not "obtain information for free without offering any
help herself?"
I seem to remember a period when you, Douglas, spent most of your time
sucking up free information from other list users without offering any
worthwhile help in return.
Tony Ingham
AUSTRALIA
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Being uncivil and the need to apologize
Dear Tony ~
It isn't necessary to be so uncivil about Diana. You called her a
"despicable person." If you didn't mean it, you should apologize to
her at once. I know you can do better than this.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
It isn't necessary to be so uncivil about Diana. You called her a
"despicable person." If you didn't mean it, you should apologize to
her at once. I know you can do better than this.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
Douglas,
I fail to see where I have been uncivil. I merely felt that a sponger,
such as you are, had no right to crit[ic]ize
anyone for seeking free information.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Tony ~
Diana is NOT a despicable person. For you to say such a thing about
her is unfortunate, even if you meant it only in sarcasm.
Please keep it civil, Tony. We don't to agree with each other, but we
do have to get along. Remember the pot you call black is probably your
own kettle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
What a despicable person Diana must be! Fancy having the temerity to
"obtain information for free without offering any help herself."
Why should she not "obtain information for free without offering any
help herself?"
I seem to remember a period when you, Douglas, spent most of your time
sucking up free information from other list users without offering any
worthwhile help in return.
Tony Ingham
AUSTRALIA
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Being uncivil and the need to apologize
Evidently Richardson wishes us all to know that he is too thick & pompous to
realise when he is being sent up, just as he demands that we all see through
his pretence of understanding basic Latin when he first asks and then vainly
fishes for someone else to translate for him.
But everyone else got your point, Tony.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1120903151.694715.96830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
realise when he is being sent up, just as he demands that we all see through
his pretence of understanding basic Latin when he first asks and then vainly
fishes for someone else to translate for him.
But everyone else got your point, Tony.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1120903151.694715.96830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Tony ~
It isn't necessary to be so uncivil about Diana. You called her a
"despicable person." If you didn't mean it, you should apologize to
her at once. I know you can do better than this.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
Douglas,
I fail to see where I have been uncivil. I merely felt that a sponger,
such as you are, had no right to crit[ic]ize
anyone for seeking free information.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Tony ~
Diana is NOT a despicable person. For you to say such a thing about
her is unfortunate, even if you meant it only in sarcasm.
Please keep it civil, Tony. We don't to agree with each other, but we
do have to get along. Remember the pot you call black is probably your
own kettle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
What a despicable person Diana must be! Fancy having the temerity to
"obtain information for free without offering any help herself."
Why should she not "obtain information for free without offering any
help herself?"
I seem to remember a period when you, Douglas, spent most of your time
sucking up free information from other list users without offering any
worthwhile help in return.
Tony Ingham
AUSTRALIA
-
Tony Ingham
OT Re: Being uncivil and the need to apologize
Douglas,
I'm in the fortunate position where I can work out what I should or
should not do without any reference to others, particularly you.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
I'm in the fortunate position where I can work out what I should or
should not do without any reference to others, particularly you.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Tony ~
It isn't necessary to be so uncivil about Diana. You called her a
"despicable person." If you didn't mean it, you should apologize to
her at once. I know you can do better than this.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
Douglas,
I fail to see where I have been uncivil. I merely felt that a sponger,
such as you are, had no right to crit[ic]ize
anyone for seeking free information.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Tony ~
Diana is NOT a despicable person. For you to say such a thing about
her is unfortunate, even if you meant it only in sarcasm.
Please keep it civil, Tony. We don't to agree with each other, but we
do have to get along. Remember the pot you call black is probably your
own kettle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tony Ingham wrote:
What a despicable person Diana must be! Fancy having the temerity to
"obtain information for free without offering any help herself."
Why should she not "obtain information for free without offering any
help herself?"
I seem to remember a period when you, Douglas, spent most of your time
sucking up free information from other list users without offering any
worthwhile help in return.
Tony Ingham
AUSTRALIA