Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jul 2005 23:32:06

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UqVCe.193$ds5.677@eagle.america.net...
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121718758.517849.318270@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| >>They resent DR's ROYALTIES -- as does Nat Taylor -- the Harvard
| >>mole, sans tenure.
|
| Yes, the profound _ressentiment_ that Nietzsche found at the root of
| many modern attitudes ...
-----------------------------------------

Indeed...

Particularly favored among Radical-Chic, Left-Wing, Gypsy Academics --
and among their hangers-on, cooks, bottlewashers, lovers and
"claqueurs".

J.K. Rowling and her _Harry Potter_ books must drive them absolutely
bug-eyed.

Hines proves yet again that he doesn't know what he is talking about, and
predictions based on his self-reflecting theory are bound to come unstuck.

In this case, for instance, I have read four Harry Potter novels in order to
review these quite favourably. The problem with them is that the author's
undoubted genius is far more in the conception than in the execution. But I
am happy for Rowling to amass a great fortune - she is not pretending to be
an expert or spreading errors (pace the Vatican).

As to that, I don't in the least resent Richardson's income or wealth. I
rather wish he would win a great lottery prize, and retire from genealogy.

The comments on Nat by Hines are, of course, beneath contempt.

Peter Stewart

Leo

Re: Nationalism rears its ugly head Re: OT Time to stand bac

Legg inn av Leo » 18 jul 2005 23:37:01

Dear CED

Brandon, Richardson and Hines are now weaving to find any excuse or reason
to justify their behaviour. If only Richardson would head for the tall grass
for a while and allow gen-med to recover from the damage he has inflicted.
Look at todays messages, the bar room brawler can be proud of his
achievement, which he does with total disregard for other people.

Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:05 AM
Subject: Nationalism rears its ugly head Re: OT Time to stand back?



Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Mr. Richardson:

I am an American, an American for thirteen generations, and proud to be
an American. Your rudeness, lack of integrity, and other misconduct
give us a bad name.

What does nationality have to do with this thread? Most of our best
scholars in this field are not Americans.

CED

John Brandon wrote:
The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim Powys-Lybbe

Yep, the non-Americans. Most of the Americans realize (or are
beginning to realize, I think) that they owe you a debt of gratitude
for your good work on the new lines in _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and
_MCA_.

Thanks for the complement, John. I know you meant it sincerely. It's
good to hear someone say something nice for a change.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 jul 2005 23:42:11

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121718758.517849.318270@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| >>They resent DR's ROYALTIES -- as does Nat Taylor -- the Harvard
| >>mole, sans tenure.
|
| Yes, the profound _ressentiment_ that Nietzsche found at the root of
| many modern attitudes ...
-----------------------------------------

Indeed...

Particularly favored among Radical-Chic, Left-Wing, Gypsy Academics --
and among their hangers-on, cooks, bottlewashers, lovers and
"claqueurs".

J.K. Rowling and her _Harry Potter_ books must drive them absolutely
bug-eyed.

She has sold 6.9 million copies of her latest book, just in the first 24
hours of its release.

Her publisher is doing a print run of 13.5 million copies.

It's particularly amusing to watch Nat Taylor try to play magisterial
tutor to DR -- a Standard Harvardian Beloved-Pose.....

The Stern New England Tutor With The Ruler Poised -- Ready To Wrap
Knuckles.

Hilarious!

Stay Tuned....

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

gryphon801@aol.com

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av gryphon801@aol.com » 18 jul 2005 23:51:44

Thanks for the post and compliment. The purported second wife of
Niccolo Orsini is disposed of by Fedele Savio, "Le tre famiglie Orsini
di Monterotondo..." in _Bollettino della Societa umbria di storia
patria 2:89-112 at 99-106 (1896) which corrects Litta. Watson in _The
Genealogist_ 12:248 n. 15 follows the correction. I am not clear why
there should be so much discussion on the point.

Henry Soszynski

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge

Legg inn av Henry Soszynski » 19 jul 2005 00:56:09

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:33:44 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

The genealogical question now on the table is about Jeanne de Sabran,
apparently the only known wife of Niccolo Orsini, count of Nola. They
are relatively proximal ancestors of Jacquette de Luxembourg, and thus
of a considerable number of Anglo-American descendants--including,
apparently, my children.

Q: Was Jeanne de Sabran also known as 'Gorizia', or did Niccolo Orsini
have another wife by that name?

The name 'Gorizia' is explicitly associated with Jeanne de Sabran in her
entry, no. 1575, in Neil D. Thompson & Charles M. Hansen's "A Medieval
Heritage: the Ancestry of Charles II, King of England," _The
Genealogist_ 17 (2003), p. 251.

The entry in Thompson & Hansen was posted by Tony Hoskins here on 12
July [from Gen-Medieval-L post <s2d3efe9.023@CENTRAL_SVR2>]:

"1574. Niccolo Orsini, called "des Ursins," Count of Nola, [born] 27
August 1331, [died] Nola (after 14 February) 1399, ... [married] to

1575. Jeanne de Sabran, called "Gorizia," her testament dated 1357
[note 250].

One can make two observations on these brief passages: First, it appears
that Thompson & Hansen believe Jeanne de Sabran is the same as
'Gorizia'. Second, the wording is ambiguous, but perhaps a 1357
testament for this woman uses the name 'Gorizia'. But this is not
entirely clear: the entry does NOT say "called 'Gorizia' IN her
testament dated 1357."

Now, some days previously Douglas Richardson had posted a document
showing the count's wife as 'Johanna' [= Jeanne, Joan, Giovanna] in
1363. His reaction to Tony's post of the twelfth was to associate the
'Gorizia' mentioned by Thompson & Hansen with the 1357 testament (when
this is not entirely clear from the passage). Richardson also appears
to have thought the 1357 testament suggested that she had died about
that time. Earlier, in citing the on-line pedigree-index to Thompson &
Hansen, on the 'Foundation for Medieval Genealogy' website, Richardson
had misread the notation "d. a1357" to stand for "died about 1357" when
in fact it means "died after 1357."

Douglas Richardson wrote on 7 July [from article
1120764055.636132.181440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>]:

... the Graphical Index to the Ancestry of
Charles II found on helpful Foundations for Medieval Genealogy website
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/CharlesII/9-12/24/393.htm) states that Jeanne
de Sabran died about 1357. This is also incorrect.

But the entry on the page Richardson cites reads simply "Jeanne de
Sabran ( -a1357)," and it is clear from the context that 'a' in the
date stands for 'after', not 'about': elsewhere on the same page 'c' is
used for 'circa'. Whether or not he was influenced by this mistaken
reading of the webpage (which one might call a quaternary source),
Douglas Richardson told Tony that he did not believe that 'Gorizia'
cited in 1357 could be the same as 'Jeanne' from 1363.

Richardson wrote on July 12 [from article
1121237685.369854.42920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>]:

If Niccolo Orsini's wife was named Giovanna (or Joan) in 1363,
... why do you believe she is the same wife as Gorizia who
allegedly left a testament dated 1357?

Wouldn't there be two wives, one named Gorizia and one named Giovanna
de Sabran? What is your evidence that Count Niccolo had a wife
named Gorizia?

In fact when Tony posted the entry he had not been concerned about
'Gorizia' and expressed no opinion or belief about her: Tony had been
interested in the other alleged wife, Marie des Baux, who Thompson &
Hansen dispensed with in a footnote, also quoted by Tony. As posted by
Tony (in the same message cited above):

Note 250: Casanovas, _Henri IV 83, evidently following Litta,
incorrectly gives Niccolo Orsini a second wife, Marie des Baux [Balzo],
only child and heiress of Raymond des Baux, Count of Soleto, d.s.p. 5
Aug. 1375 (_ES_ [new ed.] 3:4:752), and by letters dated 18 Oct. 1375,
Queen Joanna of Naples granted John d'Arcussia di Capra, Count of
Minervino, the castle and bourgs which had reverted to the crown by the
death of Raymond, Count of Soleto, without legitimate issue, "to the
exclusion of Nicholas Orsini, Count Palatine and of Nola, his nephew,
who had himself acknowledged that he has no rights in the feudal goods
of his uncle' (Watson, "Seize Quartiers' [supra note 203], 12:248, n.
15)."

Now, this footnote explicitly deals with Marie des Baux. But Tony did
NOT post the source-paragraph corresponding to the data in entries
1574-1575, where one would expect to find the source of 'Gorizia' and
mention of the 1357 testament. Here are the sources listed for this
couple, on the same page of Thompson & Hansen's article, [_TG_ 17
(2003), 251] [adapted into a list for this post]:



6. Joannis 460, 524 [? = J-D Joannis, _Les seize quartiers genealogiques
des Capetiens, 4 vols. (Lyon, 1958-65)].


So: rather than continuing a long volley of rancor, is anyone interested
in the problem, and has access to any of these sources other than Turton?

By the way, 'Gorizia' is an old medieval town in the extreme northeast
of modern Italy, on the Slovene border between Trieste and Friuli. It
is nowhere near Sabran (Provence). I have no knowledge of it as a given
name, medieval or modern.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
FWIW I have the 4 volumes in 1 of No 6 above. Jeanne de Sabran is #15

on planche 461, shown as dau of Guillaume de Sabran and Françoise de
Celano, she is married to Nicolas des Ursins, Cte de Nole, Soletto,
and parents of Suève , dite Justine des Ursins, 3e épouse of François
de Baux, Duc d'Andrie etc. Marriage is dated 1381.
Cheers,
Henry

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 jul 2005 01:25:20

<gryphon801@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121727104.386721.37710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Thanks for the post and compliment. The purported second wife of
| Niccolo Orsini is disposed of by Fedele Savio, "Le tre famiglie Orsini
| di Monterotondo..." in _Bollettino della Societa umbria di storia
| patria 2:89-112 at 99-106 (1896) which corrects Litta. Watson in _The
| Genealogist_ 12:248 n. 15 follows the correction. I am not clear why
| there should be so much discussion on the point.
-------------------------------------------

Indeed.

So, all of Pogue Stewart's incessant whining and caterwauling about
Litta is just a colossal Red Herring.

Vanessa, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 19 jul 2005 03:09:56

In article <42dc3fb6.47036257@news.uq.net.au>,
zzhsoszy@uq.net.au (Henry Soszynski) wrote:

6. Joannis 460, 524 [? = J-D Joannis, _Les seize quartiers genealogiques
des Capetiens, 4 vols. (Lyon, 1958-65)].

FWIW I have the 4 volumes in 1 of No 6 above. Jeanne de Sabran is #15
on planche 461, shown as dau of Guillaume de Sabran and Françoise de
Celano, she is married to Nicolas des Ursins, Cte de Nole, Soletto,
and parents of Suève , dite Justine des Ursins, 3e épouse of François
de Baux, Duc d'Andrie etc. Marriage is dated 1381.

Great; thanks. Is there no indication of a date for the marriage for
Jeanne de Sabran, or of her death date, or of her authorship of a
testament in 1357? Are there any sources or explanatory notes?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jul 2005 03:12:28

Hines shows us that he has entirely failed to grasp the point, yet again.

The "purported second wife of Niccolo Orsini" was Marie des Baux, NOT
Giovanna (or Gorizia) Sabrano.

There has been virtually no discussion of this point, so I'm not sure what
gryphon801 meant. However, the discussion of Giovanna/Gorizia has been
bedevilled by Richardson's lies and his mulish attempts to get others to do
his work of checking the literature. That is the only reason so much has
been posted on the subject, but this was always about the mother of Sueva,
the real wife of her father, and not about Marie des Baux.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BXWCe.198$ds5.1287@eagle.america.net...
gryphon801@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121727104.386721.37710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Thanks for the post and compliment. The purported second wife of
| Niccolo Orsini is disposed of by Fedele Savio, "Le tre famiglie Orsini
| di Monterotondo..." in _Bollettino della Societa umbria di storia
| patria 2:89-112 at 99-106 (1896) which corrects Litta. Watson in _The
| Genealogist_ 12:248 n. 15 follows the correction. I am not clear why
| there should be so much discussion on the point.
-------------------------------------------

Indeed.

So, all of Pogue Stewart's incessant whining and caterwauling about
Litta is just a colossal Red Herring.

Vanessa, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 19 jul 2005 03:22:04

In article <1121727104.386721.37710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"gryphon801@aol.com" <gryphon801@aol.com> wrote:

Thanks for the post and compliment. The purported second wife of
Niccolo Orsini is disposed of by Fedele Savio, "Le tre famiglie Orsini
di Monterotondo..." in _Bollettino della Societa umbria di storia
patria 2:89-112 at 99-106 (1896) which corrects Litta. Watson in _The
Genealogist_ 12:248 n. 15 follows the correction. I am not clear why
there should be so much discussion on the point.

Dr. Thompson, thank you for posting. But the issue (as more recently
focused) is not about the false Baux wife, but rather about the apparent
two names of the remaining wife: is it certain that 'Jeanne de Sabran'
is the person who appears to be called 'Gorizia', as Jeanne's entry in
the "Ancestry of Charles II" suggests? And what is the source of the
1357 testament mentioned there--is it also Savio?

Furthermore, Turton states that Jeanne de Sabran d. c. 1379. Can
support for this be found, either in Litta or elsewhere? (Perhaps in the
source Turton cites for Sabran, which is the Sabran-Ponteves section of
d'Hozier's Armorial general de France, from the _Registres
suppementaires_, prob. vol. 7. The FHL has a microfilm of the BN's copy
of a separate printing of the Sabran-Ponteves section, dated 1897, film
nos. 0251158 or 1517498, which appears to be what Turton used; the whole
set, with that section in it, is available more widely).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jul 2005 03:40:53

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121672563.235161.5850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Litta stated that Count Niccolo Orsini married Maria del Balzo. It is
now apparent that Litta made up this marriage. This should be a red
flag to tell us that Litta is a seriously flawed secondary work which
should be used with extreme caution.

If this is a sincere opinion of Richardson's based on one fictitious
marriage, perhaps he will tell us what we can make of his own efforts in
this line.

Litta of course didn't have the advantage of being able to test his
potential mistakes on an Internet newsgroup before publication.

Richardon does have this benefit, and mususes it constantly.

SGM readers might like to recall the peice of grade-A nonsense from
Richardson, posted on Feb 25 1999, 3:00 am, copied below my signature. Not
surprisingly, he persisted in his egregious error when a cogent explanation
of his misinterpreted evidence was pointed out to him.

Peter Stewart


Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: dcrd...@aol.com (Dcrdcr4) - Find messages by this author
Date: 1999/02/25
Subject: Isabel lady of Montalt (or Mohaut), mother of King Edward III
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

I found a deed in which King Edward III's mother, Isabel of France, was
called
Isabel, lady of Montalt (or Mohaut). I assume this means that Isabel had a
hitherto unknown second marriage to a French lord of that name after the
death
of King Edward II in 1327. Does anyone have any information on a French
family of that name in this period? Isabel was widowed in 1327, and died in
1358, leaving her many years for her to remarry. Given her stormy history
in
England, it wouldn't surprise me if she returned to France and married a
Frenchman. If so, records of her in England might be extremely limited.


I checked a book on the battles of Crecy and Calais by Wrottesley. In there
I
found reference to a French lord named Mohaut (or Montalt) who was one of
only
two or three foreigners who was involved with the English barons at these
battles. I assume this man was Isabel's husband. These battles took place
in
the mid-1340's, about the time the deed calls Isabel the lady of Montalt.


Unfortunately, I am unable to find my notes of Wrottesley at this moment.
Can
anyone supply me with any particulars on this man? He must have been
important as he brought a large contingent of knights with him. Also, he
was
one of only two or three foreigners who were accorded the rank equal to an
English baron. I've never heard of the man. But, if he was Isabel's
husband, it would explain why he was accorded such favor.


All for now. Sincerely, Douglas Richardson

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jul 2005 05:54:53

Nat Taylor wrote:

And does Litta mention a 1357 testament, or is this only in
one or more of the later sources?

Fedele Savio may have clarified this point - I haven't seen his paper
cited in your post - but Litta had recorded a 1357 testament of his
"Gorizia". At least one of Niccolo Orsini's children was born after
this date, if further information given by Litta is correct.

I have now taken the opportunity to recheck his work and my notes from
this. Despite being called a "charlatan" and a "fraud" for my caution -
and this after I had volunteered the simple statement that I was
accused of "confessing" only when backed into an illusory corner - I
find that my notes were entirely accurate, and I can confirm everything
I have said about the matter, absolutely and unequivocally.

The points on which my memory was not quite confident were a few dates
and, connected to these, an unexpectedly repeated role assigned to St
Brigid in the family's affairs. However, I had taken all this down
exactly the first time.

Richardson will have to find out the details for himself.

Nothing in relation to this thread is changed by examining Litta. He
said what I have represented, nothing more to the point and nothing
less.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 jul 2005 14:17:13

Otherwise try any review - I am sure there are plenty better than mine to keep you going until your next descent into fevered & baseless speculations about me.

Well, this is true at least-- inasmuch as something that exists is
better than something that doesn't exist ...

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jul 2005 14:24:57

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121779033.219174.275800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Otherwise try any review - I am sure there are plenty better than mine to
keep you going until your next descent into fevered & baseless
speculations about me.

Well, this is true at least-- inasmuch as something that exists is
better than something that doesn't exist ...

Yet again I don't have a clue what you mean - you can't deny the existence
of your speculations, since these are on the record; you can't deny the
existence of my review since you know nothing about this apart from my
statement and contradicting this would be a new level of silliness even for
you. But what else can be meant?

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 jul 2005 14:39:23

you can't deny the existence of my review since you know nothing about this apart from my statement and contradicting this would be a new level of silliness even for
you.


Of course I can deny the existence of your review. I'm doing it right
now.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 jul 2005 18:32:57

Simple question: What does Harry Potter have to do with Sueva Orsini?

DR

Peter Stewart wrote:
Yet again I don't have a clue what you mean - you can't deny the existence
of your speculations, since these are on the record; you can't deny the
existence of my review since you know nothing about this apart from my
statement and contradicting this would be a new level of silliness even for
you. But what else can be meant?

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 jul 2005 18:45:18

Obviously, Peter Stewart is trying to hide his Harry Potter reviews --
so, once again, he is doing a buck and wing tap dance -- trying to
extricate himself from this embarrassing situation he has stumbled
into -- and run for the tall grass.

One can reasonably surmise that the Harry Potter reviews by Stewart are
just as filled with codswallop, balderdash and gibberish as the stuff he
posts here -- so no WONDER he wants to keep them hidden.

DO remember that it was Stewart HIMSELF who mentioned these Harry Potter
reviews in the first place.

What an amazing Aussie fruitcake is Peter Stewart.

Top Banana of SGM Indeed.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Ja7De.52927$oJ.48671@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1121779033.219174.275800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| >>>Otherwise try any review - I am sure there are plenty better than
mine to
| >>>keep you going until your next descent into fevered & baseless
| >>>speculations about me.
| >
| > Well, this is true at least-- inasmuch as something that exists is
| > better than something that doesn't exist ...
|
| Yet again I don't have a clue what you mean - you can't deny the
existence
| of your speculations, since these are on the record; you can't deny
the
| existence of my review since you know nothing about this apart from my
| statement and contradicting this would be a new level of silliness
even for
| you. But what else can be meant?
|
| Peter Stewart

Hans Vogels

Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne

Legg inn av Hans Vogels » 19 jul 2005 19:13:41

My dear Douglas,

You give them enough to complain about. Whatever your achievements for
the "Americans" your contribution to this newsgroup is nothing but bad
vibrations. It is not in a occasionly string of messages but in every
string you start or participate. Just admit openly that you are human
and make mistakes and wrong assumptions and things look differently.
Do not react immediately but let remarks sink in and ponder them. In
this way you'll prevent in the future wrong conclusions from your
part. It would save you from embarrassing situations like corners you
can't come out without loss of face.

CED's description of your style was a correct one. Even a Dutchman
could see that and everyone else for that matter. One does not have to
be participating in a discussion to see that you are on a wrong track.
And what makes things worse is that you seem to do it deliberate. Are
you dumb or do you enjoy being an agitator?

I can only conclude that it would be better if you decrease your
presence on this newsgroup. Amend or start your own newsgroup.

Best always
(even that sounds hypocrite after all you contributions in the past
weeks),
Hans Vogels

P.S.


"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message news:<1121714493.275441.112890@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
John Brandon wrote:
I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.

Oh please. There's nothing wrong with Douglas--he only offends the
righteous, as someone said of Shakespeare's character Falstaff.

The problem is not me. The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas,
and Tim Powys-Lybbe. They're constantly complaining about something or
someone. They're the noisy claqueurs of the newsgroup. They think
they're better than the rest of us. They aren't.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Hans Vogels

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Hans Vogels » 19 jul 2005 19:27:11

Peter,

One should not take a moron serious. Do not give him the satisfaction
of goading you to a response. Just ignore him. He does not make sense.

Hans Vogels


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<kQVCe.52180$oJ.15898@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Even allowing for the dishonesty and stupidity of Hines, I can't make out
what he might think is the point of the message below.

Does ANYBODY understand what contradiction he is alleging?

Far from backing away, I would be interested to know if there is any
rational thought in this apparent gibberish.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nVSCe.182$ds5.1305@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:poKCe.51806$oJ.16707@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| ...The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta.
| The inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while
| reporting what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought....

------Cordon Sanitaire----------------

Pogue Stewart is lying again -- and directly contradicting himself.

Stewart HIMSELF has previously stated he can't be sure he copied the
material from Litta correctly -- so he would not post it to the
newsgroup. He realizes that would be sloppy and unforgivably
fraudulent.

NOW he is trying to back away from that position and give us the old
Buck & Wing -- Back & Fill.

No Sale.

And:

Dumbarsed.

DSH

Hans Vogels

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Hans Vogels » 19 jul 2005 20:14:54

Mike,

Let the facts and details talk. CED makes sense. At this moment it
maybe irrelevant but CED was and is not anonymous. Did you notice
CED's emailadress?

Hans Vogels

mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<1121660560.364066.286700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
This one by CED who thinks he or she is a author is best one yet. I
haven't stopped laughing at this since it was posted. He still can't
use his or her real name. So you can't be taken seriously. Maybe he or
she has no pride in himself or herself.

Mike Welch

Hans Vogels

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Hans Vogels » 19 jul 2005 20:56:46

John,

I have to second the opinion of CED. He makes sense without having to
twist anything. Douglas Richardson should make an effort of learning
of his mistakes, not making them over and over. He should start
providing answers and not trying to counterattack with silly nonsense.
Read the files. I have been around for 2 1/2 years now and Douglas
could write a book on the answers that he could not, does not, will
not, can not give.

Writing a very bulky book for "Americans" does not skill him in
getting along with fellow researchers. At least not with skilled
researchers who know their facts and literature.

Back to CED. His logic approach does not go away with your ironic
remarks. Lot's of listers are fed up with Richardsons way of acting
that he can get along with his way of behaving. And I am one of them.
It is time that a decent wind starts blowing on this newsgroup.

Hans Vogels

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1121710717.006029.50580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!

Speaking of megalomania ... ;-)

John Brandon

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 jul 2005 21:29:00

Another 'mindless robot' sort who hasn't posted much lately, but who
feels compelled to pop up to say his miniscule fraction of a coin's
worth ...

John Brandon

Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 jul 2005 21:32:02

If his approach was just slightly different he would be a great presence now he is a destroyer and glories in it.

What hysterical and illiterate foolishness.

Douglas Richardson royala

Being civil and cordial

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 jul 2005 21:58:30

Dear Hans ~

Contrary to your observations, I've carried on a private correspondence
with thousands of people throughout the world over 40 plus years. My
private correspondence has been entirely cordial and civil. As such, I
believe I'm quite capable of being civil, cordial, and collegial to all
people. Thank you. I do draw the line when people lie, distort,
misrepresent, steal other people's work, and construe facts out of
their context. I also don't care much for drama queens.

Speaking of misrepresentations, you have made one yourself. You have
alleged in your post that my two books were written for Americans.
This is not true. Rather, I wrote my books to be reference works for
the entire English speaking world. As a testimony that I have
succeeded in my objective, people from all over the world have
purchased my books. I'm grateful indeed for the interest and support
of my customers throughout the world have shown me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Hans Vogels wrote:
John,

I have to second the opinion of CED. He makes sense without having to
twist anything. Douglas Richardson should make an effort of learning
of his mistakes, not making them over and over. He should start
providing answers and not trying to counterattack with silly nonsense.
Read the files. I have been around for 2 1/2 years now and Douglas
could write a book on the answers that he could not, does not, will
not, can not give.

Writing a very bulky book for "Americans" does not skill him in
getting along with fellow researchers. At least not with skilled
researchers who know their facts and literature.

Back to CED. His logic approach does not go away with your ironic
remarks. Lot's of listers are fed up with Richardsons way of acting
that he can get along with his way of behaving. And I am one of them.
It is time that a decent wind starts blowing on this newsgroup.

Hans Vogels

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1121710717.006029.50580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!

Speaking of megalomania ... ;-)

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jul 2005 22:28:36

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121780363.489394.165640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
you can't deny the existence of my review since you know nothing about
this apart from my statement and contradicting this would be a new level
of silliness even for
you.

Of course I can deny the existence of your review. I'm doing it right
now.

Leo

Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne

Legg inn av Leo » 19 jul 2005 22:30:02

Dear Hans,

Many thanks for this. It is time that more people spoke out against
Richardson, for Richardson's own sake. If his approach was just slightly
different he would be a great presence now he is a destroyer and glories in
it.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de
Sabran [NB: contains genealogical discussion]


My dear Douglas,

You give them enough to complain about. Whatever your achievements for
the "Americans" your contribution to this newsgroup is nothing but bad
vibrations. It is not in a occasionly string of messages but in every
string you start or participate. Just admit openly that you are human
and make mistakes and wrong assumptions and things look differently.
Do not react immediately but let remarks sink in and ponder them. In
this way you'll prevent in the future wrong conclusions from your
part. It would save you from embarrassing situations like corners you
can't come out without loss of face.

CED's description of your style was a correct one. Even a Dutchman
could see that and everyone else for that matter. One does not have to
be participating in a discussion to see that you are on a wrong track.
And what makes things worse is that you seem to do it deliberate. Are
you dumb or do you enjoy being an agitator?

I can only conclude that it would be better if you decrease your
presence on this newsgroup. Amend or start your own newsgroup.

Best always
(even that sounds hypocrite after all you contributions in the past
weeks),
Hans Vogels

P.S.


"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote
in message news:<1121714493.275441.112890@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
John Brandon wrote:
I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when
DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.

Oh please. There's nothing wrong with Douglas--he only offends the
righteous, as someone said of Shakespeare's character Falstaff.

The problem is not me. The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas,
and Tim Powys-Lybbe. They're constantly complaining about something or
someone. They're the noisy claqueurs of the newsgroup. They think
they're better than the rest of us. They aren't.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jul 2005 22:35:40

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121780363.489394.165640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
you can't deny the existence of my review since you know nothing about
this apart from my statement and contradicting this would be a new level
of silliness even for
you.

Of course I can deny the existence of your review. I'm doing it right
now.

Thank you, this is what I expected you to say - now all can plainly see the
degree of your egomania and obsessive foolishness.

You are so slow on the uptake that you STILL haven't learned you don't have
the power to goad me into doing what you want.

You are so bad at analysing evidence that you imagine you have enough
information to reach baseless & preposterous conclusions.

And you are so incompetent at research that you can't find something in
print that you wish to read.

All failings that make for very low standards and lack of credibility when
applied in the field of medieval genealogy.

No surprises there....

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jul 2005 22:39:08

Richardson will have to answer this question himself: he has made the only
reference to Harry Potter in his post.

Peter Stewart


<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121794377.507653.215190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Simple question: What does Harry Potter have to do with Sueva Orsini?

DR

Peter Stewart wrote:

Yet again I don't have a clue what you mean - you can't deny the
existence
of your speculations, since these are on the record; you can't deny the
existence of my review since you know nothing about this apart from my
statement and contradicting this would be a new level of silliness even
for
you. But what else can be meant?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jul 2005 22:50:14

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iaaDe.263$ds5.1617@eagle.america.net...
Obviously, Peter Stewart is trying to hide his Harry Potter reviews --
so, once again, he is doing a buck and wing tap dance -- trying to
extricate himself from this embarrassing situation he has stumbled
into -- and run for the tall grass.

One can reasonably surmise that the Harry Potter reviews by Stewart are
just as filled with codswallop, balderdash and gibberish as the stuff he
posts here -- so no WONDER he wants to keep them hidden.

DO remember that it was Stewart HIMSELF who mentioned these Harry Potter
reviews in the first place.

Hines can surmise whatever he wishes, and we can assess the value of his
thoughts as exhibited to public scrutiny.

He is so poor at comprehension & controversy that he has assumed there must
be multiple reviews, when all I said was that I had read four Harry Potter
books to review these, in order to show that Hines was fantasising wrongly
about my opinions. The novels were surveyed together, in one review.

I have written countless articles of this kind, on literary, cultural and
historical subjects. These are published, not hidden. The gist of the one in
question was given in public, not in secret.

My activities outside the field of medieval genealgy can be of no more than
incidental relevance here, and I do not wish to make these the object of
prurient and unhealthy attention by Brandon or Hines.

The newsgroup members have no reason to share in their obsessive and
senseless musings.

Peter Stewart

IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 19 jul 2005 22:54:26

Hans,
the day you yourself can present as good creditentials as Douglas
Richardson, http://www.royalancestry.net/biography.htm,
that day we might but only might be willing to listen to you but not if you
write such personal-abusive-attack on him or other scholars as you done
below.

Inger E

"Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:a300f298.0507191156.7b4a756f@posting.google.com...
John,

I have to second the opinion of CED. He makes sense without having to
twist anything. Douglas Richardson should make an effort of learning
of his mistakes, not making them over and over. He should start
providing answers and not trying to counterattack with silly nonsense.
Read the files. I have been around for 2 1/2 years now and Douglas
could write a book on the answers that he could not, does not, will
not, can not give.

Writing a very bulky book for "Americans" does not skill him in
getting along with fellow researchers. At least not with skilled
researchers who know their facts and literature.

Back to CED. His logic approach does not go away with your ironic
remarks. Lot's of listers are fed up with Richardsons way of acting
that he can get along with his way of behaving. And I am one of them.
It is time that a decent wind starts blowing on this newsgroup.

Hans Vogels

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1121710717.006029.50580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!

Speaking of megalomania ... ;-)

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 jul 2005 23:04:00

Well, actually, I'm pretty good at researching things that interest me.
This doesn't interest me to any great extent.

However, I did a search in OCLC under the name Peter M. Stewart and
found nothing (not surprising, since something as minor as a review
shouldn't show up there). But at least it makes us aware that you
haven't published any books.

Did a search on both Yahoo and Google using "Harry Pooter Review
Stewart"--once again nothing.

It may be simply that your reviews are in a very small-time
publication.

Or maybe they don't exist at all.

I have two theories about you: you're either a pompous blowhard of
small accomplishment, or the pure invention of someone who doesn't want
to post under his/her own name.

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jul 2005 23:16:27

O the tedium....and this person thinks I should open up MORE of my time and
output to his grotesque obsession. Comments interspersed:

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121810640.369760.127310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, actually, I'm pretty good at researching things that interest me.
This doesn't interest me to any great extent.

However, I did a search in OCLC under the name Peter M. Stewart and
found nothing (not surprising, since something as minor as a review
shouldn't show up there). But at least it makes us aware that you
haven't published any books.

You have assumed from the MSN e-mail address-of-convenience used in my posts
that the name in my published work must be "Peter M. Stewart", while at the
same time telling us you are "pretty good" at research!

Did a search on both Yahoo and Google using "Harry Pooter Review
Stewart"--once again nothing.

_The Diary of Mr Pooter_ is a work I have not reviewed.

It may be simply that your reviews are in a very small-time
publication.

Some are, some are not.

Or maybe they don't exist at all.

I have two theories about you: you're either a pompous blowhard of
small accomplishment, or the pure invention of someone who doesn't want
to post under his/her own name.

Again, not very logical: why not both?

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 jul 2005 23:28:55

O the tedium

Indeed.

Again, not very logical: why not both?

Unfortunately, it does seem to be the most likely solution.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 jul 2005 23:38:24

Hilarious!

Having failed miserably to convince with his considered,
carefully-formulated gibberish -- Peter Stewart now turns to:

Truly Content-Free Posting.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:8geDe.53041$oJ.36170@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1121780363.489394.165640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| >>>you can't deny the existence of my review since you know nothing
about
| >>>this apart from my statement and contradicting this would be a new
level
| >>>of silliness even for
| > you.
| >
| > Of course I can deny the existence of your review. I'm doing it
right
| > now.

Leo

OT Re: Being civil and cordial

Legg inn av Leo » 19 jul 2005 23:41:02

The dishonesty of Richardson continues, again he is twisting other peoples
words.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 6:58 AM
Subject: Being civil and cordial


Dear Hans ~

Contrary to your observations, I've carried on a private correspondence
with thousands of people throughout the world over 40 plus years.
===== Hans Vogels said nothing about _private correspondence_


My
private correspondence has been entirely cordial and civil.
=== As this is not the subject of the conversation, it is irrelevant.


As such, I
believe I'm quite capable of being civil, cordial, and collegial to all
people. Thank you.
=== You are wrong. You say you are capable of civil etc to all people. Many

will disagree with this.

I do draw the line when people lie, distort,
misrepresent, steal other people's work, and construe facts out of
their context.
=====The above is this a description of Richardson's own behaviour?



I also don't care much for drama queens.
======Who continues to create drama? Many people are fed up but sadly only
a few speak up.

Speaking of misrepresentations, you have made one yourself. You have
alleged in your post that my two books were written for Americans.
This is not true. Rather, I wrote my books to be reference works for
the entire English speaking world.
===== With this I agree. Your works are about genealogical lines to American

Gateway Ancestors, providing genealogical lines for Americans but the work
does assist others as well. However, only time will tell how these books
will be regarded. Will they be honoured, which I sincerely hope, or will
they be placed next to the work of Roderick Stuart?


As a testimony that I have
succeeded in my objective, people from all over the world have
purchased my books. I'm grateful indeed for the interest and support
of my customers throughout the world have shown me.
====I am glad for you and hope that many people who appreciate your work

have told you so, it is always great to know that people appreciate what you
do.

However, that doesn't change the situation. Richardson for the last few
years has been the main cause of disharmony, surely he must see that. And
again I suggest that he stops for a while and allow gen-med to return to
some sort of normalcy.


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Hans Vogels wrote:
John,

I have to second the opinion of CED. He makes sense without having to
twist anything. Douglas Richardson should make an effort of learning
of his mistakes, not making them over and over. He should start
providing answers and not trying to counterattack with silly nonsense.
Read the files. I have been around for 2 1/2 years now and Douglas
could write a book on the answers that he could not, does not, will
not, can not give.

Writing a very bulky book for "Americans" does not skill him in
getting along with fellow researchers. At least not with skilled
researchers who know their facts and literature.

Back to CED. His logic approach does not go away with your ironic
remarks. Lot's of listers are fed up with Richardsons way of acting
that he can get along with his way of behaving. And I am one of them.
It is time that a decent wind starts blowing on this newsgroup.

Hans Vogels

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1121710717.006029.50580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!

Speaking of megalomania ... ;-)


Henry Soszynski

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge

Legg inn av Henry Soszynski » 20 jul 2005 00:35:49

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:09:56 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <42dc3fb6.47036257@news.uq.net.au>,
zzhsoszy@uq.net.au (Henry Soszynski) wrote:

6. Joannis 460, 524 [? = J-D Joannis, _Les seize quartiers genealogiques
des Capetiens, 4 vols. (Lyon, 1958-65)].

FWIW I have the 4 volumes in 1 of No 6 above. Jeanne de Sabran is #15
on planche 461, shown as dau of Guillaume de Sabran and Françoise de
Celano, she is married to Nicolas des Ursins, Cte de Nole, Soletto,
and parents of Suève , dite Justine des Ursins, 3e épouse of François
de Baux, Duc d'Andrie etc. Marriage is dated 1381.

Great; thanks. Is there no indication of a date for the marriage for
Jeanne de Sabran, or of her death date, or of her authorship of a
testament in 1357? Are there any sources or explanatory notes?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Regretfully none at all.
Just to muddy the waters, FWIW, Johannes III Count of Görz-Lienz
+1325/1327, had an illegitimate son named Johannis de Goricia (sic!)
Cheers,
Henry

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2005 00:36:40

Or possibly you are Peter Rose, editor of the _Australian Book Review_,
and member of the well-known 'sporting' family, the Roses of
Collingwood?

Just a guess ...

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/DecJan03/Rose.htm

http://www.austlit.edu.au/run?ex=ShowAg ... tId=A%2BaB

(Nice picture, dude) ...

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2005 01:30:00

Here he is, looking _slightly_ more stylish ...

http://www.questions.com.au/lectures.php

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 01:36:45

John Brandon wrote:

Or possibly you are Peter Rose, editor of the _Australian Book
Review_, and member of the well-known 'sporting' family, the
Roses of Collingwood?

Just a guess ...

A bad one. Calm down and get on with your own life - mine is a closed
book to you.

Peter Rose certainly has no interest in medieval genealogy, and doesn't
share my interests in much else for that matter. In common with me,
however, he does have far better things to do with his time than answer
your endless inanities.

Peter Stewart

Hans Vogels

Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne

Legg inn av Hans Vogels » 20 jul 2005 06:31:06

John,

Please refrase and you might even get a civil answer back.

Hans Vogels


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1121805122.696665.3630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
If his approach was just slightly different he would be a great presence now he is a destroyer and glories in it.

What hysterical and illiterate foolishness.

Hans Vogels

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Hans Vogels » 20 jul 2005 07:06:13

Inger,

Good "creditentials" was a subject that came up before in the past. If
I am not mistaken in a line connected with Douglas Richardson. I would
suggest you'll look it up the next time you make that remark.

Good credentials is no garanty for good conduct on the newsgroup. I am
a member to a Dutch group dedicated to researching Dutch Medieval
Nobility. It is quite civil there. An occansionly hard word but people
don't walk around there with long toes and fear that someone might
step on them. Then again it is moderated and that might be a dirty
word with some of the posters here.

What are good credentials if your research approach is wrong. Have you
been in the opportunity to have original medieval charters in your
hand and looked for the possible remarks on the back, looking for any
clue that tells a story about the text or the transition of the
charter through the ages. Have you had the pleasure of opening
registers time forgot, or are you a "chair researcher"? Research and
reactions from behind the screen? Nothing wrong with that. It has to
be done to.

I'm 48 now and doing genealogical research for more than 31 years. I'm
still flexible to learn every day, draw conclusions, apply logic,
enhance my knowledge, retrace my steps. I am myselves devils advocate
and it works quite good. And by the way I am getting along with
everyone. We have a saying in Holland: be nice to everyone in your way
up because falling down you'll see everyone of them.

Inger. I have seen lots of your contributions in the past so you are
no total stranger to me. I belief you are reacting to my answer to
John. Well you have seen his contributions here lately. He is pretty
capable of defending himself. There is no need to speak up for him or
for Douglas Richardson. They are pretty verbal themselves. Nice seeing
you Inger, have a nice day.

With regards,
Hans Vogels



"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message news:<mEeDe.29387$d5.182568@newsb.telia.net>...
Hans,
the day you yourself can present as good creditentials as Douglas
Richardson, http://www.royalancestry.net/biography.htm,
that day we might but only might be willing to listen to you but not if you
write such personal-abusive-attack on him or other scholars as you done
below.

Inger E

"Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:a300f298.0507191156.7b4a756f@posting.google.com...
John,

I have to second the opinion of CED. He makes sense without having to
twist anything. Douglas Richardson should make an effort of learning
of his mistakes, not making them over and over. He should start
providing answers and not trying to counterattack with silly nonsense.
Read the files. I have been around for 2 1/2 years now and Douglas
could write a book on the answers that he could not, does not, will
not, can not give.

Writing a very bulky book for "Americans" does not skill him in
getting along with fellow researchers. At least not with skilled
researchers who know their facts and literature.

Back to CED. His logic approach does not go away with your ironic
remarks. Lot's of listers are fed up with Richardsons way of acting
that he can get along with his way of behaving. And I am one of them.
It is time that a decent wind starts blowing on this newsgroup.

Hans Vogels

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1121710717.006029.50580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!

Speaking of megalomania ... ;-)

Leo

Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne

Legg inn av Leo » 20 jul 2005 08:10:01

Dear Hans,

As I have killfiled John Brandon a long time ago, I don't see his messages
and do not see why I should answer him, civilly or in kind.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de
Sabran [NB: contains genealogical discussion]


John,

Please refrase and you might even get a civil answer back.

Hans Vogels


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1121805122.696665.3630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
If his approach was just slightly different he would be a great
presence now he is a destroyer and glories in it.

What hysterical and illiterate foolishness.


IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 20 jul 2005 08:17:41

"Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:a300f298.0507192206.3a10dc3f@posting.google.com...
Inger,

Good "creditentials" was a subject that came up before in the past. If
I am not mistaken in a line connected with Douglas Richardson. I would
suggest you'll look it up the next time you make that remark.

Let's say, which is the truth, I know more about D Richardson then you find
in an url but I don't know him only people who know of his good works and
whom I trust much more than I ever will trust you.
Good credentials is no garanty for good conduct on the newsgroup.

True. Take a look at the fantatic political historic-non historic Jesu
discussion in soc.history.ancient at the moment. Your lines is all so true
for 90-98% of the participant religious people from the three religions that
hold the Old Testament as important using that and Jesu contempory sources
as weapons to hit each other's heads.


I am
a member to a Dutch group dedicated to researching Dutch Medieval
Nobility. It is quite civil there. An occansionly hard word but people
don't walk around there with long toes and fear that someone might
step on them. Then again it is moderated and that might be a dirty
word with some of the posters here.

True but that doesn't make a change in respect of creditentials.
Unfortunatly for some.
What are good credentials if your research approach is wrong. Have you
been in the opportunity to have original medieval charters in your
hand and looked for the possible remarks on the back, looking for any
clue that tells a story about the text or the transition of the
charter through the ages.

Last time two weeks ago. I don't do it on daily bases but I am used to when
I need to.

Have you had the pleasure of opening
registers time forgot, or are you a "chair researcher"?

One and a half month ago was the last time I was in that position. Now at
present I am discussing from an alike startingpoint the impact of
intermarriages in Royal Families from 981 to 1430's on the Greenland,
Vinland issue. Where? In a Swedish forum.
One thing came to mind from an ordinary work yesterday. I found a note
saying that Bianca of Namur is said to have told that King Magnus Eriksson
had wished them to be married at the Grey Friar's monestry which the Swedish
Royal Court dismissed in favour of one of the Royal Churches. That might be
a lead to follow up Magnus Eriksson's Grey Friar connection. I don't know.
Only know that the writer of the work is a member of a Noble Family known to
have kept a lot of old papers out of the Public Eye so to say....


Research and
reactions from behind the screen? Nothing wrong with that. It has to
be done to.

Yes it has and yes nothing wrong with that except that computers doesn't
give you the opportunity to smell the 'air' of the parchment to feel that
time isn't long away/ago when it was written, to hold the parchment up to
look at erasures and added texts etc etc. That's life in a little capsule, a
time-capsule I believe we can call it.

I'm 48 now and doing genealogical research for more than 31 years. I'm
still flexible to learn every day, draw conclusions, apply logic,
enhance my knowledge, retrace my steps.

The important thing is to be open for the unexpected. Which might turn out
to be true or false but needless to say MUST be looked into before being
dismissed. That one can't do over a cup of tea or coffee. Not even over a
glass of wine or two.... :-)
I am 55 soon to become 56 years old. My first exam was as a
system-programmer for computers back in 1971. I am a teacher of History,
Geography and Religion. 'My period' is 400-1400 AD(give and take 100 years)
in every aspect where the Northern Countries and England are involved, but I
had to do a special academic deep study and test for the France and
Flandern's trade and economic situation in 12th-14th century before I wrote
my third essay/thesis in History.

I am myselves devils advocate
and it works quite good. And by the way I am getting along with
everyone. We have a saying in Holland: be nice to everyone in your way
up because falling down you'll see everyone of them.

Inger. I have seen lots of your contributions in the past so you are
no total stranger to me. I belief you are reacting to my answer to
John. Well you have seen his contributions here lately. He is pretty
capable of defending himself. There is no need to speak up for him or
for Douglas Richardson. They are pretty verbal themselves. Nice seeing
you Inger, have a nice day.

I don't discuss John's lines only Douglas Richardson's creditentials. They
speak for themselves. When reading my contributions in the past you also
must have seen the abusive lines I have had to face. I can't understand why
people, scholars as well as non-scholars, seem not to understand that if you
attack an idea that's have to be made by using valid arguments not by using
personal attacks and that a person who has been called names and who's
creditentials has been said to be of no importance does have the right to
defend him-/herself without being accused of personal attacks. That's within
the Human Rights if not directly written out in full in every countries
laws.
With regards,
Hans Vogels

Same to you

Inger E


"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:<mEeDe.29387$d5.182568@newsb.telia.net>...
Hans,
the day you yourself can present as good creditentials as Douglas
Richardson, http://www.royalancestry.net/biography.htm,
that day we might but only might be willing to listen to you but not if
you
write such personal-abusive-attack on him or other scholars as you done
below.

Inger E

"Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:a300f298.0507191156.7b4a756f@posting.google.com...
John,

I have to second the opinion of CED. He makes sense without having to
twist anything. Douglas Richardson should make an effort of learning
of his mistakes, not making them over and over. He should start
providing answers and not trying to counterattack with silly nonsense.
Read the files. I have been around for 2 1/2 years now and Douglas
could write a book on the answers that he could not, does not, will
not, can not give.

Writing a very bulky book for "Americans" does not skill him in
getting along with fellow researchers. At least not with skilled
researchers who know their facts and literature.

Back to CED. His logic approach does not go away with your ironic
remarks. Lot's of listers are fed up with Richardsons way of acting
that he can get along with his way of behaving. And I am one of them.
It is time that a decent wind starts blowing on this newsgroup.

Hans Vogels

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1121710717.006029.50580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has
arrived!

Speaking of megalomania ... ;-)

Peter Stewart

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 08:46:31

Comments interspersed:

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:pUmDe.29404$d5.182511@newsb.telia.net...
"Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:a300f298.0507192206.3a10dc3f@posting.google.com...
Inger,

Good "creditentials" was a subject that came up before in the past. If
I am not mistaken in a line connected with Douglas Richardson. I would
suggest you'll look it up the next time you make that remark.

Let's say, which is the truth, I know more about D Richardson then you
find
in an url but I don't know him only people who know of his good works and
whom I trust much more than I ever will trust you.

Well, Inger started by complaining about personal attacks, so I suppose it's
fair that he should show us what he means.

Good credentials is no garanty for good conduct on the newsgroup.

True.

They are also no guarantee of commonsense, honesty or professionalism.
Richardson presents his credentials anew every time he starts another losing
argument. This newsgroup has never yet heard a reasoned defense of
Richardson on the flaws that are consistently pointed out in his work, his
skills for the study of medieval genealogy and his analysis of evidence. To
my recollection, SGM has never even heard unreasoned support from any person
of respectable judgement, except a few brief and lukewarm words from John
Steele Gordon on one occasion, never yet repeated. And definitely nothing
comprehensive.

If Inger wishes to take up the challenge, no-one is stopping him.

<snip>

Research and
reactions from behind the screen? Nothing wrong with that. It has to
be done to.

Yes it has and yes nothing wrong with that except that computers doesn't
give you the opportunity to smell the 'air' of the parchment to feel that
time isn't long away/ago when it was written, to hold the parchment up to
look at erasures and added texts etc etc. That's life in a little capsule,
a
time-capsule I believe we can call it.

Examining ancient documents is no proof against folly - look at some of the
scholars who have lost their minds and reputations over the Dead Sea
scrolls.

<snip>

I don't discuss John's lines only Douglas Richardson's creditentials. They
speak for themselves. When reading my contributions in the past you also
must have seen the abusive lines I have had to face. I can't understand
why
people, scholars as well as non-scholars, seem not to understand that if
you
attack an idea that's have to be made by using valid arguments not by
using
personal attacks and that a person who has been called names and who's
creditentials has been said to be of no importance does have the right to
defend him-/herself without being accused of personal attacks. That's
within
the Human Rights if not directly written out in full in every countries
laws.

I don't know when a poster has denied Richardson or anyone else the right to
self-defense - at the time this is exercised on a newsgroup, it can't even
be known what accusations might follow, and the right of reply is always
available anyway. If a charge made against Richardson is at fault, he can
answer it and address that as well. The trouble is, he never does this and
he & his cronies never even try to do it - instead they all habitually set
out to divert attention, and/or Richardson makes unwarranted, hypocritical
remarks such as his criticism of Litta for a fictitious marriage when he
himself has demonstrably committed far worse blunders of the same kind.

Peter Stewart

IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 20 jul 2005 09:06:05

Hi Peter,
comments within text. But please remember Inger is a female name and I am a
female......
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:rjnDe.53418$oJ.49177@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Comments interspersed:

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:pUmDe.29404$d5.182511@newsb.telia.net...

"Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:a300f298.0507192206.3a10dc3f@posting.google.com...
Inger,

Good "creditentials" was a subject that came up before in the past. If
I am not mistaken in a line connected with Douglas Richardson. I would
suggest you'll look it up the next time you make that remark.

Let's say, which is the truth, I know more about D Richardson then you
find
in an url but I don't know him only people who know of his good works
and
whom I trust much more than I ever will trust you.

Well, Inger started by complaining about personal attacks, so I suppose
it's
fair that he should show us what he means.

In the post to which I sent my line as an answer from the side of Hans V
wrote in a way I wouldn't have expected any serious scholar to do. What I
mean is that you might not like a person nor his writing, but that doesn't
give you or anyone else the right to dismiss the person's creditentials
without showing that this and that is wrong one way or an other.
Good credentials is no garanty for good conduct on the newsgroup.

True.

They are also no guarantee of commonsense, honesty or professionalism.
Richardson presents his credentials anew every time he starts another
losing
argument. This newsgroup has never yet heard a reasoned defense of
Richardson on the flaws that are consistently pointed out in his work, his
skills for the study of medieval genealogy and his analysis of evidence.
To
my recollection, SGM has never even heard unreasoned support from any
person
of respectable judgement, except a few brief and lukewarm words from John
Steele Gordon on one occasion, never yet repeated. And definitely nothing
comprehensive.

Leave John S G out of the discussion. I haven't written anything for or
against him. Know too little to do so. As For Richardson's creditentials
some here seem to keen to critizes without presenting valid arguments for or
against them. That a person might behave odd, strange, be on this or that
political 'side' and or haven't dismissed this or that in advance are things
often attacked in personal maners by naysayers in SHM. I don't like it. If
you have a case present the case, show that you are capable of presenting
valid arguments or at least that you thought of the premisses needed for
your assumption to be a plausible scenario. Don't dismiss things, facts or
person(-s) due to private subjective opinions.
One of my favorites in the difficult question of how to do a valid
scientific argumentation from start to the end are Arne Naess, the
Norwegian. His works are excellent as starters to understand how a proper
approach should and could be made to be valid.
If Inger wishes to take up the challenge, no-one is stopping him.

I am not a 'he', I am a 55 year old female teacher of History.
snip

Research and
reactions from behind the screen? Nothing wrong with that. It has to
be done to.

Yes it has and yes nothing wrong with that except that computers doesn't
give you the opportunity to smell the 'air' of the parchment to feel
that
time isn't long away/ago when it was written, to hold the parchment up
to
look at erasures and added texts etc etc. That's life in a little
capsule,
a
time-capsule I believe we can call it.

Examining ancient documents is no proof against folly - look at some of
the
scholars who have lost their minds and reputations over the Dead Sea
scrolls

Not examining ancient and medieval documents doesn't give a chance to prove
things one way or an other. In the examination lies that you yourself and
non else take the stand for or against intepretations made by scholars of
Linguists as well as History/Religion. You can't lean to anyone else opinion
than your own. Everyone believing that has definitely missed to do their
homework. That said I would like to add that subjective opinions on
messangers, scholars or non-scholar, in ways that leads to impact of said
messangers presented 'cases' in my eyes show off as non-scholarly behavior.
To which all must remember that a person under personal attacks ALWAYS has
the right to defend him-/herself without being accused of personal attacks!
..
snip

I don't discuss John's lines only Douglas Richardson's creditentials.
They
speak for themselves. When reading my contributions in the past you also
must have seen the abusive lines I have had to face. I can't understand
why
people, scholars as well as non-scholars, seem not to understand that if
you
attack an idea that's have to be made by using valid arguments not by
using
personal attacks and that a person who has been called names and who's
creditentials has been said to be of no importance does have the right
to
defend him-/herself without being accused of personal attacks. That's
within
the Human Rights if not directly written out in full in every countries
laws.

I don't know when a poster has denied Richardson or anyone else the right
to
self-defense - at the time this is exercised on a newsgroup, it can't even
be known what accusations might follow, and the right of reply is always
available anyway. If a charge made against Richardson is at fault, he can
answer it and address that as well. The trouble is, he never does this and
he & his cronies never even try to do it - instead they all habitually set
out to divert attention, and/or Richardson makes unwarranted, hypocritical
remarks such as his criticism of Litta for a fictitious marriage when he
himself has demonstrably committed far worse blunders of the same kind.

Peter Stewart

Don't agree with you but I respect your thoughts as personal opinions which
you are entitled to have.

Inger E

Peter Stewart

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 09:51:24

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:NBnDe.29407$d5.182515@newsb.telia.net...
Hi Peter,
comments within text. But please remember Inger is a female name and I am
a
female......

My apologies.

<snp>

In the post to which I sent my line as an answer from the side of Hans V
wrote in a way I wouldn't have expected any serious scholar to do. What I
mean is that you might not like a person nor his writing, but that doesn't
give you or anyone else the right to dismiss the person's creditentials
without showing that this and that is wrong one way or an other.

I'm not sure what you mean - I have not "dismissed" anyone's credentials,
but only pointed out that these don't make for guarantees of quality. I know
people with doctorates who are comically uneducated, with no breadth of
knowledge or sense and as little depth in all but one specialised area. The
only credentials that matter in a Usenet newsgroup are in the content of
posts.

<snip>

Leave John S G out of the discussion. I haven't written anything for or
against him. Know too little to do so.

Too bad - he is well worth getting to know, an excellent writer and a very
personable scholar. I will introduce whomever and whatever I please in
discussion, thank you. If you have trouble with this, perhaps passing over
it without comment would be more dignified than complaining.

As For Richardson's creditentials
some here seem to keen to critizes without presenting valid arguments for
or
against them.

Yes, that impression would be given sometimes, especially when picking up a
thread in the middle or without reference to another going on
simultaneously. But the criticisms don't come out of the blue, and they are
prompted by Richardson. Why do you suppose that these troubles centre so
often on him? Why do you suppose that his critics don't take the same
approach with everyone (or anyone) else? Hines claims to think this is due
to envy, but that is not backed up by the slightest trace of evidence - it
is indeed laughable to anyone who stops to think what has become of
Richardson's reputation, even if this is not thought due to his own
behaviour.

That a person might behave odd, strange, be on this or that
political 'side' and or haven't dismissed this or that in advance are
things
often attacked in personal maners by naysayers in SHM. I don't like it. If
you have a case present the case, show that you are capable of presenting
valid arguments or at least that you thought of the premisses needed for
your assumption to be a plausible scenario. Don't dismiss things, facts or
person(-s) due to private subjective opinions.

I haven't any idea what Richardson's politics might be, nor do I care.
However, his integrity as a self-proclaimed scholar does matter to me as to
others. Highly specific and plausible arguments are presented here freqently
to the effect that he is habitually dishonest, hypocritical and incompetent.
These cases are NEVER answered, and to suggest that this may be in fear of
unjust reprisal is not sustainable - purely in terms of personal insults,
Richardson gives as many (though not as good) as he gets.

<snip>

Don't agree with you but I respect your thoughts as personal opinions
which
you are entitled to have.

Fine - but you are always at liberty to refute an opinion that you consider
wrong or disgreeable. The ways of avoiding this are many, and simply stating
the obvious "You are entitled to your opinion...." is one of them. It is not
helpful to understanding.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Being civil and cordial

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2005 09:53:06

On 19 Jul 2005 13:58:30 -0700, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

My
private correspondence has been entirely cordial and civil. As such, I
believe I'm quite capable of being civil,

Mr Richardson, If you are what you say. Then you won't mind answering
my question. A question I have asked you Privately but you won't
respond. All of the readers who have bought your Magna Carta Ancestry
Book have commented on it. I can't, cause you won't confirm you
received my US$96.50, the book + US$36.50 for Air Mail as per your
quote. You were very quick to reply after I posted here.

" If you're interested in obtaining a copy of the Magna Carta Ancestry
book, the special prepublication price is $60.00, plus shipping costs.
Shipping is either $22.80 for surface mail, or $36.50 for air mail. I
personally recommend air mail. I've found surface mail to your part
of the world to be extremely slow. "

My Question again. Have you posted my Book? If so When. It don't
take 4 weeks to fly all the way to New Zealand.

You will need to send another one.

Brendan Wilson
New Zealand

PA3 correction advisor to Douglas Richardson and there were dozens

To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Being civil and cordial

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 jul 2005 09:57:37

Dear Brendan ~

I've replied to you by private e-mail. Thanks!

DR

wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz wrote:
On 19 Jul 2005 13:58:30 -0700, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

My
private correspondence has been entirely cordial and civil. As such, I
believe I'm quite capable of being civil,

Mr Richardson, If you are what you say. Then you won't mind answering
my question. A question I have asked you Privately but you won't
respond. All of the readers who have bought your Magna Carta Ancestry
Book have commented on it. I can't, cause you won't confirm you
received my US$96.50, the book + US$36.50 for Air Mail as per your
quote. You were very quick to reply after I posted here.

" If you're interested in obtaining a copy of the Magna Carta Ancestry
book, the special prepublication price is $60.00, plus shipping costs.
Shipping is either $22.80 for surface mail, or $36.50 for air mail. I
personally recommend air mail. I've found surface mail to your part
of the world to be extremely slow. "

My Question again. Have you posted my Book? If so When. It don't
take 4 weeks to fly all the way to New Zealand.

You will need to send another one.

Brendan Wilson
New Zealand

PA3 correction advisor to Douglas Richardson and there were dozens

To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.

IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 20 jul 2005 10:29:17

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:ggoDe.53490$oJ.14748@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:NBnDe.29407$d5.182515@newsb.telia.net...
Hi Peter,
comments within text. But please remember Inger is a female name and I
am
a
female......

My apologies.

snp

In the post to which I sent my line as an answer from the side of Hans V
wrote in a way I wouldn't have expected any serious scholar to do. What
I
mean is that you might not like a person nor his writing, but that
doesn't
give you or anyone else the right to dismiss the person's creditentials
without showing that this and that is wrong one way or an other.

I'm not sure what you mean - I have not "dismissed" anyone's credentials,
but only pointed out that these don't make for guarantees of quality.

I am glad to hear your clarifications on this point. Your lines sounded an
other way or at least indistinct in that question.


I know people with doctorates who are comically uneducated, with no breadth
of
knowledge or sense and as little depth in all but one specialised area.
The
only credentials that matter in a Usenet newsgroup are in the content of
posts.

So do I. Problem is that some seem, at least in SHM, seem to believe that if
you have a Professor's title of a doctor's degree in subject A which is to
be from the so called Technical Science field, the very position and degree
should, could and would make same person a scholar in Humaniora..... and
vice versa.
snip

Leave John S G out of the discussion. I haven't written anything for or
against him. Know too little to do so.

Too bad - he is well worth getting to know, an excellent writer and a very
personable scholar. I will introduce whomever and whatever I please in
discussion, thank you. If you have trouble with this, perhaps passing over
it without comment would be more dignified than complaining.

One can't have it all. He might be an excellent writer and a very good
scholar, but there are many of those and while I am reading more than most I
can't read all I want to read. Normally I read a book a day but of course
then I have to write notes on parts I want to look closer into so I can go
back after having done a 'research' in the refered texts, Primary or
Secondary sources. For the moment I have 4 works I am checking against each
other and against still existing documents from 12th-14th century. The
computer is a brake from the reading and analysing.
As For Richardson's creditentials
some here seem to keen to critizes without presenting valid arguments
for
or
against them.

Yes, that impression would be given sometimes, especially when picking up
a
thread in the middle or without reference to another going on
simultaneously. But the criticisms don't come out of the blue, and they
are
prompted by Richardson. Why do you suppose that these troubles centre so
often on him? Why do you suppose that his critics don't take the same
approach with everyone (or anyone) else? Hines claims to think this is due
to envy, but that is not backed up by the slightest trace of evidence - it
is indeed laughable to anyone who stops to think what has become of
Richardson's reputation, even if this is not thought due to his own
behaviour.

Please don't take Hines into the discussion. Hines has always been nice and
helpful to me as a person. I know that it isn't the case with most but I
appreciate the help I have had over the years.
That a person might behave odd, strange, be on this or that
political 'side' and or haven't dismissed this or that in advance are
things
often attacked in personal maners by naysayers in SHM. I don't like it.
If
you have a case present the case, show that you are capable of
presenting
valid arguments or at least that you thought of the premisses needed for
your assumption to be a plausible scenario. Don't dismiss things, facts
or
person(-s) due to private subjective opinions.

I haven't any idea what Richardson's politics might be, nor do I care.
However, his integrity as a self-proclaimed scholar does matter to me as
to
others. Highly specific and plausible arguments are presented here
freqently
to the effect that he is habitually dishonest, hypocritical and
incompetent.
These cases are NEVER answered, and to suggest that this may be in fear of
unjust reprisal is not sustainable - purely in terms of personal insults,
Richardson gives as many (though not as good) as he gets.

That a case, any case isn't answered is a bad sign, but that's not the whole
world. I don't think that you can say 'gives as many.... as he gets'. If you
take that approach the hard words never end and that's as far from scholarly
behavior as can be. He has the right to defend himself no matter what. That
has to be accepted. If not under personal attack answering abuse or what he
feels offending, then it's an other matter. Unfortunatly the later case
hasn't been up in what we seen here in SHM.
Mind you I don't give a dime or a nickel for his or anyone else assumpted
marriage between Royal persons and other IF there isn't any valid document
that at least might hint that way. That's not the point. The point is that
the issue of subject discussed must be possible discussing without using the
type of personal-attacks that we all seen too much of in the past.
snip

Don't agree with you but I respect your thoughts as personal opinions
which
you are entitled to have.

Fine - but you are always at liberty to refute an opinion that you
consider
wrong or disgreeable. The ways of avoiding this are many, and simply
stating
the obvious "You are entitled to your opinion...." is one of them. It is
not
helpful to understanding.

Please explain why you added the last line. I must be tired but I honestly
don't understand what you mean by 'It is not helpful to understanding'. In
my world it's best to keep an open mind but to take a stand for or against
what one believe to be true and accept that others not necessairly arrived
to same conclusion. That also means that one has to have more than one views
in a discussion to be able to discuss without looking too close on one's own
navel or leaning to a friend because he or she is a friend.....
Peter Stewart

Inger E

Peter Stewart

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 11:33:39

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:NPoDe.29409$d5.182571@newsb.telia.net...

Don't agree with you but I respect your thoughts as personal opinions
which
you are entitled to have.

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:ggoDe.53490$oJ.14748@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Fine - but you are always at liberty to refute an opinion that you
consider wrong or disgreeable. The ways of avoiding this are many,
and simply stating the obvious "You are entitled to your opinion...."
is one of them. It is not helpful to understanding.

Please explain why you added the last line. I must be tired but I honestly
don't understand what you mean by 'It is not helpful to understanding'. In
my world it's best to keep an open mind but to take a stand for or against
what one believe to be true and accept that others not necessairly arrived
to same conclusion. That also means that one has to have more than one
views
in a discussion to be able to discuss without looking too close on one's
own
navel or leaning to a friend because he or she is a friend.....

That's partly what I meant - it isn't helpful to my understanding to be told
"You are entitled to your opinion" (which I knew already) instead of
learning your views on the point/s at issue. The result is no exchange of
views at all, because yours are withheld behind a general statement of the
obvious rather than engaging directly & specifically with whatever I have
said that you don't agree with.

Peter Stewart




Peter Stewart

Inger E




IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 20 jul 2005 12:11:19

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:7MpDe.53613$oJ.27147@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:NPoDe.29409$d5.182571@newsb.telia.net...


Don't agree with you but I respect your thoughts as personal opinions
which
you are entitled to have.

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:ggoDe.53490$oJ.14748@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Fine - but you are always at liberty to refute an opinion that you
consider wrong or disgreeable. The ways of avoiding this are many,
and simply stating the obvious "You are entitled to your opinion...."
is one of them. It is not helpful to understanding.

Please explain why you added the last line. I must be tired but I
honestly
don't understand what you mean by 'It is not helpful to understanding'.
In
my world it's best to keep an open mind but to take a stand for or
against
what one believe to be true and accept that others not necessairly
arrived
to same conclusion. That also means that one has to have more than one
views
in a discussion to be able to discuss without looking too close on one's
own
navel or leaning to a friend because he or she is a friend.....

That's partly what I meant - it isn't helpful to my understanding to be
told
"You are entitled to your opinion" (which I knew already) instead of
learning your views on the point/s at issue. The result is no exchange of
views at all, because yours are withheld behind a general statement of the
obvious rather than engaging directly & specifically with whatever I have
said that you don't agree with.

Peter Stewart

when you written answer ref to Richardson in the past you written as if he
isn't worth his creditentials but you haven't presented valid arguments
against it. Observe that I am not discussing his opinion but the way you
answer him which I can't help finding more personal abusive than
issue-discussing.

Inger E




Peter Stewart

Inger E






Peter Stewart

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 12:53:01

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:rjqDe.29415$d5.182469@newsb.telia.net...

<snip>

when you written answer ref to Richardson in the past you written as if he
isn't worth his creditentials but you haven't presented valid arguments
against it. Observe that I am not discussing his opinion but the way you
answer him which I can't help finding more personal abusive than
issue-discussing.

By his "credentials" do you mean his university degrees and/or his
publications in the field of medieval genealogy?

I know nothing about the former, apart from his own report to the newsgroup,
and about the latter only what has been revealed in extracts that he has
posted here.

As I said, the credentials that count in this forum are the contributions
made to it. Richardson's include some good and useful work, a lot more that
is undistinguished in quality, directionless and/or worthless to knowledge
(such as his frequent palaver about kinship terms), often plonked here
apparently just to keep his name before the public, and far too much that is
merely derivative without acknowledgement or utterly abysmal when he has to
rely on his own devices.

Moreover he sets out to deceive his readers about his skills, the depth of
his research and the extent of his learning in medieval studies. He knows
about as much as I would expect from a secondary school student with more
interest than aptitude for history. He applies this little knowledge about
as effectively as a grade school drop-out. The fact that he has been awarded
degrees cannot alter this sorry state of affairs. He might have worked
harder once for all I know, but now he only works busily, not diligently,
conscientiously or sensibly.

And he works by choice on the margins of a specialised field of study for
which he has not even bothered to master the basic accomplishment of reading
the languages of the primary sources, all the while pretending to be an
original and estimable scholar.

If you wish to counter these statements, that have all been established time
and again through undisputed proof and from repeated examples, go ahead and
do so. But simply saying that "valid arguments" have not been presented when
this is flatly untrue is not scholarly, not courteous, and not in the least
convincing.

As I keep asking of Richardson and his supporters, please give us an actual,
concrete argument in his favour for once, instead of always evading the
criticism. If it is readily available to you to do this, and yet you don't
wish to address the issues for some untold reason, perhaps you could at
least explain to us why it is NEVER attempted, by anyone.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2005 13:58:47

As I see you are posting furiously on other threads (hoping to distract
from this one?), I wonder if there isn't something to it --

At any rate, I think it very dishonest of you to post under an assumed
named (given your endless moralizing about the fraud and charlatanry of
DR). At least that's how I interpret your statement ....

You have assumed from the MSN e-mail address-of-convenience used in my posts
that the name in my published work must be "Peter M. Stewart", while at

the
same time telling us you are "pretty good" at research!

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 14:29:43

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121864327.187809.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
As I see you are posting furiously on other threads (hoping to distract
from this one?), I wonder if there isn't something to it --

And how can you support this highly subjective impression with the evidence
that Richardson demands rather than opinion? My posting frequency is not out
of the ordinary, and I have certainly not scattered my thoughts across an
unusual number of threads. As for this one, the Suva Orsini matter is open
for anyone to comment on, but I have nothing at this stage to add to my post
confirming everything I had said from the start about Litta. What exactly is
there for ME to distract attention from?

At any rate, I think it very dishonest of you to post under an assumed
named (given your endless moralizing about the fraud and charlatanry of
DR). At least that's how I interpret your statement ....

What on earth are you talking about? Every post I have ever made is signed
"Peter Stewart" (apart from spelling mistakes). Whether this name was given
to me at birth or assumed (and you can't know which), it is my right to use
it and my posts do so not just consistently but invariably. How can this be
dishonest? One person signs with one name, taking responsibility for
everything posted under this and ready to respond to any question. However
you interpret or misinterpret my statement below, where is the alleged
dishonesty?

[I wrote:]
You have assumed from the MSN e-mail address-of-convenience used in my
posts
that the name in my published work must be "Peter M. Stewart", while at
the same time telling us you are "pretty good" at research!

Jeepers you are slow on the uptake. MSN addresses are not always easy to
find, and odd additions or omissions from an actual name may be needed even
if a lot of trouble is taken over the choice, which I certainly did not
bother myself about - the account wasn't created for e-mail use, but just to
validate a posting address that would not elicit spam or unsolicited mail
from people like yourself. You had assumed that "Peter M. Stewart" must be
the name given for me in print, merely on the basis of "p_m_stewart" in an
e-mail address. Not too bright, especially since non-Americans rarely use
middle initials in this way.

Peter Stewart

Mike

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Mike » 20 jul 2005 14:41:01

credentials? See the famous "Dr." John Gray's fake diploma degree at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... school.htm

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2005 14:55:53

Jeepers you are slow on the uptake. MSN addresses are not always easy to
find, and odd additions or omissions from an actual name may be needed

even
if a lot of trouble is taken over the choice, which I certainly did not
bother myself about - the account wasn't created for e-mail use, but
just to
validate a posting address that would not elicit spam or unsolicited
mail
from people like yourself. You had assumed that "Peter M. Stewart" must
be
the name given for me in print, merely on the basis of "p_m_stewart"
in an
e-mail address. Not too bright, especially since non-Americans rarely
use
middle initials in this way.


No need to patronize in this way. Of course I searched under variants,
such as "Peter Stewart" and "P.M. Stewart" (knowing that some British
and pseudo-British writers like to use initials only).

But, from what you say above, I really think you must be posting here
under an assumed name. Possibly to keep people from inspecting your
"real world" publications (such as they are). How tacky.

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 15:15:52

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121867752.963114.53710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jeepers you are slow on the uptake. MSN addresses are not always easy to
find, and odd additions or omissions from an actual name may be needed
even
if a lot of trouble is taken over the choice, which I certainly did not
bother myself about - the account wasn't created for e-mail use, but
just to
validate a posting address that would not elicit spam or unsolicited
mail
from people like yourself. You had assumed that "Peter M. Stewart" must
be
the name given for me in print, merely on the basis of "p_m_stewart"
in an
e-mail address. Not too bright, especially since non-Americans rarely
use
middle initials in this way.


No need to patronize in this way. Of course I searched under variants,
such as "Peter Stewart" and "P.M. Stewart" (knowing that some British
and pseudo-British writers like to use initials only).

Congratulations. And I tried variants when making up the MSN address - "P"
and "M" are both end letters of rows on the keyboard, and the intervening
"p_l_stewart" was not available.

What kind of writer does "pseudo-British" refer to? An American who
fantasises about titled aristocracy perhaps?

But, from what you say above, I really think you must be posting here
under an assumed name. Possibly to keep people from inspecting your
"real world" publications (such as they are). How tacky.

So you think something, without evidence, therefore someone else must be
"tacky". Not too sane. SGM is part of the real world to most of us.

You can have no idea if Peter Stewart is my own name or a pseudonym. Get
over it.

And you complain about being "patronised" when you insert glib phrases like
"such as they are" when talking about things we all know you haven't seen
but explicitly wish to.

As I said, not too bright.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: postings under aliases

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2005 15:17:47

Of course it makes a difference, fool, if 90% of his postings are
attacking the published books of a person who is using his own name
(Douglas Richardson). One might conceivably want to look at the
writings of this "Peter Stewart." But one is given no possibility of
doing that, is one?

Peter Stewart

Re: postings under aliases

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 15:19:16

""fairthorne"" <fairthorne@breathe.com> wrote in message
news:006a01c58d34$7433e120$0600000a@oemcomputer...

<snip>

In all my time in this conference Peter has used the same name
throughout -
I don't care whether he (or she) is Peter Stewart, Steve Waugh or a
reincarnated Don Bradman. It's the quality of the postings that matters
and
I find his informative and helpful.

Thank you, Simon.

I wish I could become an Australian captain, but would prefer to be born
again with the character of Waugh and the only the skill of Bradman if you
don't mind!

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: postings under aliases

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 15:27:14

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121869067.695837.205040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Of course it makes a difference, fool, if 90% of his postings are
attacking the published books of a person who is using his own name
(Douglas Richardson). One might conceivably want to look at the
writings of this "Peter Stewart." But one is given no possibility of
doing that, is one?

So Brandon, who works in a library, does not know about the great tradition
of anonymous criticism....

One has the possibility of reading the works of Peter Stewart if one has the
brains to look for them sensibly. Many American libraries hold some of the
journals in which I have published frequently.

One might also acquire the brains to realise that Peter Stewart is not here
for the purpose of advertising his work in any area, much less outside the
field of medieval genealogy.

And that he is entitled to be choosy about his readers and correspondents.
He chooses SGM, but he doesn't choose Brandon. Woe and thunder - we all must
hear about it from the poor one, daily, hourly, endlessly....

Peter Stewart

IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 20 jul 2005 15:47:02

"Mike" <yared22311@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1121866860.933528.78760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
credentials? See the famous "Dr." John Gray's fake diploma degree at

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... s/school.h

tm

Mike,
you might be 100% right but then again you might be 100% wrong, I don't care
as long as you don't present YOUR case with valid arguments for your
interpretation of the facts behind your assumption.
Writing like yours doesn't help science forward no matter if the thoughts
behind is correct or not.
Please state your case.

Inger E

IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 20 jul 2005 15:51:01

Peter,
you don't get a degree in History using secondary school knowledge. It takes
hard work and a lot of homework, academic papers, essays and thesis which
definitely not are taken out of one book in a bookstore! If you haven't that
yourself, fine but Richardson has done all that and that's the creditentials
that counts in the long run.

I have excluded your lines because they are written in a personal attack
which show your lack of scholarly behavior no matter what your background
is. I hadn't expected that from a 9th grader let alone anyone who studied at
Universities.

Inger E

fairthorne

postings under aliases

Legg inn av fairthorne » 20 jul 2005 16:01:02

From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>


At any rate, I think it very dishonest of you to post under an assumed
named

this charge has been levelled at other contributors as well as Peter

see my earlier posting - there is nothing dishonest about posting under an
assumed name; if it were probably half the group would be disqualified.
There are several regular contributors who use initials or aliases for a
variety of good reasons.
There is nothing wrong if a contributor uses the same name consistently for
all their postings - what is wrong is if one person uses a number of aliases
with the intent of deliberately misleading the other contributors as to the
source of the messages.

In all my time in this conference Peter has used the same name throughout -
I don't care whether he (or she) is Peter Stewart, Steve Waugh or a
reincarnated Don Bradman. It's the quality of the postings that matters and
I find his informative and helpful.

cheers

Simon

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 jul 2005 18:08:37

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:s0tDe.53834$oJ.19060@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| You can have no idea if Peter Stewart is my own name or a pseudonym.
| Get over it.
----------------------------------

There he goes, blowing smoke and flashing mirrors again.

Pogue Stewart won't even confirm whether his name really is PETER
STEWART or not.

He won't confirm his sexuality either.

Fraud & Charlatan...He has lots to hide.

Non-Girly Men when challenged just say:

"Nope. I'm happily heterosexual" or something similar.

But not our Pogue Stewart -- he does a buck and wing and flounces off in
his light loafers -- blowing smoke out of his arse as he departs.

Pogue Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

How Sweet It Is!

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 jul 2005 18:19:41

Dear Spencer ~

I suspect that Peter Stewart is going to dribble out parts of his Harry
Potter reviews to us, much like he did his cribbed notes from Litta.
He must think this is keeping the newsgroup in suspense. Yawn!

Peter should stop beating around the bush, and say what he really
means. His lack of professionalism is very annoying.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Obviously, Peter Stewart is trying to hide his Harry Potter reviews --
so, once again, he is doing a buck and wing tap dance -- trying to
extricate himself from this embarrassing situation he has stumbled
into -- and run for the tall grass.

One can reasonably surmise that the Harry Potter reviews by Stewart are
just as filled with codswallop, balderdash and gibberish as the stuff he
posts here -- so no WONDER he wants to keep them hidden.

DO remember that it was Stewart HIMSELF who mentioned these Harry Potter
reviews in the first place.

What an amazing Aussie fruitcake is Peter Stewart.

Top Banana of SGM Indeed.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Ja7De.52927$oJ.48671@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1121779033.219174.275800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| >>>Otherwise try any review - I am sure there are plenty better than
mine to
| >>>keep you going until your next descent into fevered & baseless
| >>>speculations about me.
|
| > Well, this is true at least-- inasmuch as something that exists is
| > better than something that doesn't exist ...
|
| Yet again I don't have a clue what you mean - you can't deny the
existence
| of your speculations, since these are on the record; you can't deny
the
| existence of my review since you know nothing about this apart from my
| statement and contradicting this would be a new level of silliness
even for
| you. But what else can be meant?
|
| Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 jul 2005 18:25:02

I do not trust any post to which someone will not sign his or her Real
Name.

Can I always TELL whether a name is Real?

No, of course not -- but I can always tell if someone starts off with a
jumbled pseudonym -- and I distrust them immediately. They have
something to hide.

If a man or woman doesn't even have the Good Sense to use his or her own
name I certainly can't trust anything else he or she says.

People will say and write all sorts of gibberish, twaddle and libel from
behind the Mask of Anonymity -- nothing they say can be trusted --
because no Real Identified Person is even willing to stand behind it.

Be Advised:

All the people worth reading here use their Real Names.

Douglas Richardson, for example, makes no bones about using his Real
Name.

"Peter Stewart" _au contraire_, very stupidly, refuses to say whether he
uses his Real Name or a pseudonym.

'Nuff Said.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

CED

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av CED » 20 jul 2005 18:58:44

IEJ wrote:
Peter,
you don't get a degree in History using secondary school knowledge. It takes
hard work and a lot of homework, academic papers, essays and thesis which
definitely not are taken out of one book in a bookstore! If you haven't that
yourself, fine but Richardson has done all that and that's the creditentials
that counts in the long run.

Dear Inger E:

One can get a degree with a major in history in most Amercan
institutions of higher education with little knowledge of history and
no knowledge of any foreign language. That is the extent to which
American education standards have fallen. A demonstrated ability to
write a paragraph, let alone a thesis, is unusual as a qualification
for a bachelor's degree.

A masters degree, even in the best of Amersican universities,
demonstrates only that the holder in qualifed to teach the subject in
secondary school. The masters usually requires only thay the candidate
to read a passage in one foreign language.

Please be advised to check out any degree held by an American making
claims to academic honors. Check out which institution confered the
degree and the academic record of the holders of that degree from that
institution. In addition, if the claimant also taught in a college,
that should be checked as well.

A masters in history does nothing to qualify its holder to work in
medieval genealogy. Moreover, some of those who claim to be medieval
genealogists have demonstrated little, and sometimes an appalling lack
of, knowledge of medieval history.

Be advised that Amercan universites are not the same as European
universities.

A careful background check on those claiming to be scholars in this
group can surely be interesting if not astonishing!

If you bought the story about Mr Richardson's academic qualifications,
I hope that got a receipt.

CED


I have excluded your lines because they are written in a personal attack
which show your lack of scholarly behavior no matter what your background
is. I hadn't expected that from a 9th grader let alone anyone who studied at
Universities.

Inger E

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 jul 2005 19:29:52

Yep, he seems to be descending into madness -- and even more incoherent
babbling.

Now he is even telling us that _Peter Stewart_ may just be a
pseudonym -- the man obviously has a Great Deal to hide.

He lost all that money, his and his mother's, on the horses -- perhaps
the creditors are still after him and he doesn't want to reveal his Real
Name.

He's Completely Untrustworthy.

DSH

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121879981.357838.276700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Dear Spencer ~
|
| I suspect that Peter Stewart is going to dribble out parts of his
Harry
| Potter reviews to us, much like he did his cribbed notes from Litta.
| He must think this is keeping the newsgroup in suspense. Yawn!
|
| Peter should stop beating around the bush, and say what he really
| means. His lack of professionalism is very annoying.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:

| > Obviously, Peter Stewart is trying to hide his Harry Potter
reviews --
| > so, once again, he is doing a buck and wing tap dance -- trying to
| > extricate himself from this embarrassing situation he has stumbled
| > into -- and run for the tall grass.
| >
| > One can reasonably surmise that the Harry Potter reviews by Stewart
are
| > just as filled with codswallop, balderdash and gibberish as the
stuff he
| > posts here -- so no WONDER he wants to keep them hidden.
| >
| > DO remember that it was Stewart HIMSELF who mentioned these Harry
Potter
| > reviews in the first place.
| >
| > What an amazing Aussie fruitcake is Peter Stewart.
| >
| > Top Banana of SGM Indeed.
| >
| > Deus Vult.
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
| > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >
| > Vires et Honor

Hans Vogels

Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne

Legg inn av Hans Vogels » 20 jul 2005 19:35:11

Leo,

That is a possibility but I do not fancy a daily load of messages. It
is quite comfortable for me to read the messages and strings on the
Newsgroup.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote in message news:<000501c58cf1$7819a240$0300a8c0@Toshiba>...
Dear Hans,

As I have killfiled John Brandon a long time ago, I don't see his messages
and do not see why I should answer him, civilly or in kind.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de
Sabran [NB: contains genealogical discussion]


John,

Please refrase and you might even get a civil answer back.

Hans Vogels


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1121805122.696665.3630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
If his approach was just slightly different he would be a great
presence now he is a destroyer and glories in it.

What hysterical and illiterate foolishness.


IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 20 jul 2005 20:00:38

"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1121882324.583755.229260@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

IEJ wrote:
Peter,
you don't get a degree in History using secondary school knowledge. It
takes
hard work and a lot of homework, academic papers, essays and thesis
which
definitely not are taken out of one book in a bookstore! If you haven't
that
yourself, fine but Richardson has done all that and that's the
creditentials
that counts in the long run.

Dear Inger E:

One can get a degree with a major in history in most Amercan
institutions of higher education with little knowledge of history and
no knowledge of any foreign language. That is the extent to which
American education standards have fallen. A demonstrated ability to
write a paragraph, let alone a thesis, is unusual as a qualification
for a bachelor's degree.

You must be kidding? How can that come apart? I know I have had hard to
explain to many US scholars of Anthropology, Archaeology and History that
one need to study the Prime/Primary sources from as close to the origin that
possibly is at least being able to read texts that aren't translated into
English. English didn't exist in Ancient Age and most of the Medieval
English is far from the American English of today. Thus it doesn't matter if
a good linguist translated a text he or she aren't usually familiar with the
history told from other sources so there are more than spelling problems in
the translated texts. More over, if I hadn't learnt French, German(including
Medieval), Icelandic and Latin I wouldn't have been able to do a
textvalidation at all. Tiny pieces here and there can add to one an other if
one reads them compare their information and check the reason behind the
writing.
It's outridgous if you are correct. Please can you provide course-programs
showing this to be right?
A masters degree, even in the best of Amersican universities,
demonstrates only that the holder in qualifed to teach the subject in
secondary school. The masters usually requires only thay the candidate
to read a passage in one foreign language.

a passage? you must be joking? Aren't you? For one of the minor courses 5
points I had to read 500 pages and be familiar with the content + able to
validate and discuss for or against what a proposed scenario would have had
for impact had it happened.
I had to read French for one of those minors..... in other courses I had to
read English, German, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic. Not to mention that I
had to be able to distinguish between Northumbrian and Saxon vocabular in my
prestudy for my C as well as my D-essay/thesis.
Please be advised to check out any degree held by an American making
claims to academic honors. Check out which institution confered the
degree and the academic record of the holders of that degree from that
institution. In addition, if the claimant also taught in a college,
that should be checked as well.

I know what Richardson written and that's far better than the scenario you
put forward. Unfortunatly there are scholars here, a few but still, who done
much worse no matter having had to pass courses, essays thesis and
dissertations.......
A masters in history does nothing to qualify its holder to work in
medieval genealogy. Moreover, some of those who claim to be medieval
genealogists have demonstrated little, and sometimes an appalling lack
of, knowledge of medieval history.

Here we have linguists and technicians trying to claim to be scholars of
Medieval History because they either translate or teach their own part in
minor courses for students studying History. Not better belive me.
Be advised that Amercan universites are not the same as European
universities.

That I know but I also know that some have much better courses than what the
ordinary university can provide here.
A careful background check on those claiming to be scholars in this
group can surely be interesting if not astonishing!

If you bought the story about Mr Richardson's academic qualifications,
I hope that got a receipt.

I compared his writing with some here and believe me we do have those who
are scholars doing a much worse homework before presenting an article. We do
have some that are extra ordinary good scholars, such as Dick Harrison and
other, but look closer at those who put forward the so called
'Uppsalaskolan' look for their arguments and which sources they lean
to........
CED

Inger E

CED

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av CED » 20 jul 2005 21:33:11

IEJ wrote:
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1121882324.583755.229260@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


IEJ wrote:
Peter,
you don't get a degree in History using secondary school knowledge. It
takes
hard work and a lot of homework, academic papers, essays and thesis
which
definitely not are taken out of one book in a bookstore! If you haven't
that
yourself, fine but Richardson has done all that and that's the
creditentials
that counts in the long run.

Dear Inger E:

One can get a degree with a major in history in most Amercan
institutions of higher education with little knowledge of history and
no knowledge of any foreign language. That is the extent to which
American education standards have fallen. A demonstrated ability to
write a paragraph, let alone a thesis, is unusual as a qualification
for a bachelor's degree.

You must be kidding? How can that come apart? I know I have had hard to
explain to many US scholars of Anthropology, Archaeology and History that
one need to study the Prime/Primary sources from as close to the origin that
possibly is at least being able to read texts that aren't translated into
English.

Few undergraduate history majors would know what a primary source is.
And, very few masters candidates in history would know what to do with
a primary source. This I know because I deal with such students
frequently.

English didn't exist in Ancient Age and most of the Medieval
English is far from the American English of today. Thus it doesn't matter if
a good linguist translated a text he or she aren't usually familiar with the
history told from other sources so there are more than spelling problems in
the translated texts. More over, if I hadn't learnt French, German(including
Medieval), Icelandic and Latin I wouldn't have been able to do a
textvalidation at all. Tiny pieces here and there can add to one an other if
one reads them compare their information and check the reason behind the
writing.

Mr. Richardson knows none of the above languages. You are much better
prepared for being a genealogist than he is.


It's outridgous if you are correct. Please can you provide course-programs
showing this to be right?

Talk to some American students and recent college graduates. Foreign
languages are not necessary for a degree.

A masters degree, even in the best of Amersican universities,
demonstrates only that the holder in qualifed to teach the subject in
secondary school. The masters usually requires only thay the candidate
to read a passage in one foreign language.

Most American universities have special courses designed solely for the
purpose of getting masters candidates through their one language
requirement. Even then, candidates take dictionaries and grammars into
the language exam. Most of them treat the language requirments as a
joke. I have heard many American students contend that there is no
need foreign languages, English is enough. They say that students all
over the world are learning English, so why should we bother with their
languages. The believe that computers will translate for them.


a passage? you must be joking? Aren't you? For one of the minor courses 5
points I had to read 500 pages and be familiar with the content + able to
validate and discuss for or against what a proposed scenario would have had
for impact had it happened.
I had to read French for one of those minors..... in other courses I had to
read English, German, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic. Not to mention that I
had to be able to distinguish between Northumbrian and Saxon vocabular in my
prestudy for my C as well as my D-essay/thesis.

You are to be congratulated for a great accomplishment. Very few
American students can do that.

Please be advised to check out any degree held by an American making
claims to academic honors. Check out which institution confered the
degree and the academic record of the holders of that degree from that
institution. In addition, if the claimant also taught in a college,
that should be checked as well.

I know what Richardson written and that's far better than the scenario you
put forward.

You give Mr. Richardson far more credit than he is due. Go to the
archives of this group and search out what proven scholars think of his
work.



Unfortunatly there are scholars here, a few but still, who done
much worse no matter having had to pass courses, essays thesis and
dissertations.......

A masters in history does nothing to qualify its holder to work in
medieval genealogy. Moreover, some of those who claim to be medieval
genealogists have demonstrated little, and sometimes an appalling lack
of, knowledge of medieval history.

Here we have linguists and technicians trying to claim to be scholars of
Medieval History because they either translate or teach their own part in
minor courses for students studying History. Not better belive me.

Be advised that Amercan universites are not the same as European
universities.

That I know but I also know that some have much better courses than what the
ordinary university can provide here.

A careful background check on those claiming to be scholars in this
group can surely be interesting if not astonishing!

If you bought the story about Mr Richardson's academic qualifications,
I hope that got a receipt.

I compared his writing with some here and believe me we do have those who
are scholars doing a much worse homework before presenting an article. We do
have some that are extra ordinary good scholars, such as Dick Harrison and
other, but look closer at those who put forward the so called
'Uppsalaskolan' look for their arguments and which sources they lean
to........

CED

Inger E

solitaire

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av solitaire » 20 jul 2005 22:01:28

CED wrote:
NOTHING RELEVANT TO MEDIEVAL HISTORY

IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 20 jul 2005 22:05:21

"solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:IYyDe.11218$N91.4670@trnddc08...
CED wrote:
NOTHING RELEVANT TO MEDIEVAL HISTORY

If the courses, essays and thesis a student have to pass studying Medieval
or any other History isn't essential,
then what is?

Inger E

Peter Stewart

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 22:54:10

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:pxtDe.29431$d5.182417@newsb.telia.net...
Peter,
you don't get a degree in History using secondary school knowledge. It
takes
hard work and a lot of homework, academic papers, essays and thesis which
definitely not are taken out of one book in a bookstore! If you haven't
that
yourself, fine but Richardson has done all that and that's the
creditentials
that counts in the long run.

Ah, here we see the problem: its just the degrees that impress you after
all. As I said, I know people with doctorates who have no education to speak
of. Richardson MAY have worked hard and well at one stage in his life - I
don't know or care - but universities churn out graduates who never use
their brains again. Some even hire them back.

I have excluded your lines because they are written in a personal attack
which show your lack of scholarly behavior no matter what your background
is. I hadn't expected that from a 9th grader let alone anyone who studied
at
Universities.

This is a bald misrepresentation of my post: I summarised a huge body of
reasoned, evidenced criticism asking you to respond to the specifics or tell
us why you & others can't or won't ever do this. To avoid the issue by
suggesting that it was a juvenile personal attack is no better than a lie.
We can all see this, and if anyone wishes to check the post it is copied
below my signature for reference.

Peter Stewart


"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:rjqDe.29415$d5.182469@newsb.telia.net...

<snip>

when you written answer ref to Richardson in the past you written as if he
isn't worth his creditentials but you haven't presented valid arguments
against it. Observe that I am not discussing his opinion but the way you
answer him which I can't help finding more personal abusive than
issue-discussing.

By his "credentials" do you mean his university degrees and/or his
publications in the field of medieval genealogy?

I know nothing about the former, apart from his own report to the newsgroup,
and about the latter only what has been revealed in extracts that he has
posted here.

As I said, the credentials that count in this forum are the contributions
made to it. Richardson's include some good and useful work, a lot more that
is undistinguished in quality, directionless and/or worthless to knowledge
(such as his frequent palaver about kinship terms), often plonked here
apparently just to keep his name before the public, and far too much that is
merely derivative without acknowledgement or utterly abysmal when he has to
rely on his own devices.

Moreover he sets out to deceive his readers about his skills, the depth of
his research and the extent of his learning in medieval studies. He knows
about as much as I would expect from a secondary school student with more
interest than aptitude for history. He applies this little knowledge about
as effectively as a grade school drop-out. The fact that he has been awarded
degrees cannot alter this sorry state of affairs. He might have worked
harder once for all I know, but now he only works busily, not diligently,
conscientiously or sensibly.

And he works by choice on the margins of a specialised field of study for
which he has not even bothered to master the basic accomplishment of reading
the languages of the primary sources, all the while pretending to be an
original and estimable scholar.

If you wish to counter these statements, that have all been established time
and again through undisputed proof and from repeated examples, go ahead and
do so. But simply saying that "valid arguments" have not been presented when
this is flatly untrue is not scholarly, not courteous, and not in the least
convincing.

As I keep asking of Richardson and his supporters, please give us an actual,
concrete argument in his favour for once, instead of always evading the
criticism. If it is readily available to you to do this, and yet you don't
wish to address the issues for some untold reason, perhaps you could at
least explain to us why it is NEVER attempted, by anyone.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 23:02:20

Hines is fantasising about me, with his usual lascivious bent.

What use would there be in a statement signed "Peter Stewart" asserting that
"Peter Stewart is my real name" if I use this as an alias in order to
deceive?

Logic is NOT the forte of Hines.

My private life and proclivities are totally unknown to him, and there can
be no basis whatsoever for his feverish drivel below. Again, there could be
no value in an assertion about this even if it were an appropriate subject
to raise here. Hines like to post about these matters, as we know. I don't.

Peter Stewart



"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zJuDe.337$ds5.1508@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:s0tDe.53834$oJ.19060@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| You can have no idea if Peter Stewart is my own name or a pseudonym.
| Get over it.
----------------------------------

There he goes, blowing smoke and flashing mirrors again.

Pogue Stewart won't even confirm whether his name really is PETER
STEWART or not.

He won't confirm his sexuality either.

Fraud & Charlatan...He has lots to hide.

Non-Girly Men when challenged just say:

"Nope. I'm happily heterosexual" or something similar.

But not our Pogue Stewart -- he does a buck and wing and flounces off in
his light loafers -- blowing smoke out of his arse as he departs.

Pogue Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

How Sweet It Is!

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 23:04:33

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121879981.357838.276700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Spencer ~

I suspect that Peter Stewart is going to dribble out parts of his Harry
Potter reviews to us, much like he did his cribbed notes from Litta.
He must think this is keeping the newsgroup in suspense. Yawn!

Peter should stop beating around the bush, and say what he really
means. His lack of professionalism is very annoying.

What I really mean is exactly what I really said: I am not going to give you
what you want from Litta - look it up for yourself in the FHL. You lost the
argument hands down and I am not your research assistant.

And I am not going on about Harry Potter - YOU are.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 23:07:38

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VYuDe.338$ds5.1895@eagle.america.net...
I do not trust any post to which someone will not sign his or her Real
Name.

Can I always TELL whether a name is Real?

No, of course not -- but I can always tell if someone starts off with a
jumbled pseudonym -- and I distrust them immediately. They have
something to hide.

If a man or woman doesn't even have the Good Sense to use his or her own
name I certainly can't trust anything else he or she says.

People will say and write all sorts of gibberish, twaddle and libel from
behind the Mask of Anonymity -- nothing they say can be trusted --
because no Real Identified Person is even willing to stand behind it.

Be Advised:

All the people worth reading here use their Real Names.

Douglas Richardson, for example, makes no bones about using his Real
Name.

You can only have menat to write "his real names"unless you are as dishonest
as he is (something you are clearly working up to). Is Uriah N. Owen his
real real name or is it Douglas Richardson?

"Peter Stewart" _au contraire_, very stupidly, refuses to say whether he
uses his Real Name or a pseudonym.

Hines demands confirmation of what may or may not be true from the source
that he says can't be trusted. And he calls another person stupid!

Peter Stewart

IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 20 jul 2005 23:08:57

Peter,
it's you who have the problem. You have shown that you lack the capacity to
validate medieval texts. That's ok, many do. Scholars of History and others
who aren't specialist in the period discussed. But you miss the big problem
and that is that it's only given to a very few to perform in a scholary way
without having studied the subject to a degree at University. Very few, but
there are exceptions. One of the best Medieval Historian I ever met, read or
heard of never made it to university. His parents couldn't afford it but he
had it in him and had read, analysed and where willing to discuss using
valid arguments and contra-arguments in a very scholarly way.

There is a lady in SD who has it in her. She is also one of the very few.

BUT, yes a degree in a subject, at least here in Europe say that you are
capable of using the methods that science call for as well as that you are
well aware that you need to take yourself time to validate, analyse, test
for premisses needed to be true for an assumption or an hypothesis to be
possible to be true. etc. etc.

As I said, you are having a problem. Not me or anyone else who done his/her
homework having had it up in Academic circles. Most others aren't capable to
validate.

Inger E

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:6KzDe.53903$oJ.29587@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:pxtDe.29431$d5.182417@newsb.telia.net...
Peter,
you don't get a degree in History using secondary school knowledge. It
takes
hard work and a lot of homework, academic papers, essays and thesis
which
definitely not are taken out of one book in a bookstore! If you haven't
that
yourself, fine but Richardson has done all that and that's the
creditentials
that counts in the long run.

Ah, here we see the problem: its just the degrees that impress you after
all. As I said, I know people with doctorates who have no education to
speak
of. Richardson MAY have worked hard and well at one stage in his life - I
don't know or care - but universities churn out graduates who never use
their brains again. Some even hire them back.

I have excluded your lines because they are written in a personal attack
which show your lack of scholarly behavior no matter what your
background
is. I hadn't expected that from a 9th grader let alone anyone who
studied
at
Universities.

This is a bald misrepresentation of my post: I summarised a huge body of
reasoned, evidenced criticism asking you to respond to the specifics or
tell
us why you & others can't or won't ever do this. To avoid the issue by
suggesting that it was a juvenile personal attack is no better than a lie.
We can all see this, and if anyone wishes to check the post it is copied
below my signature for reference.

Peter Stewart


"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:rjqDe.29415$d5.182469@newsb.telia.net...

snip

when you written answer ref to Richardson in the past you written as if
he
isn't worth his creditentials but you haven't presented valid arguments
against it. Observe that I am not discussing his opinion but the way you
answer him which I can't help finding more personal abusive than
issue-discussing.

By his "credentials" do you mean his university degrees and/or his
publications in the field of medieval genealogy?

I know nothing about the former, apart from his own report to the
newsgroup,
and about the latter only what has been revealed in extracts that he has
posted here.

As I said, the credentials that count in this forum are the contributions
made to it. Richardson's include some good and useful work, a lot more
that
is undistinguished in quality, directionless and/or worthless to knowledge
(such as his frequent palaver about kinship terms), often plonked here
apparently just to keep his name before the public, and far too much that
is
merely derivative without acknowledgement or utterly abysmal when he has
to
rely on his own devices.

Moreover he sets out to deceive his readers about his skills, the depth of
his research and the extent of his learning in medieval studies. He knows
about as much as I would expect from a secondary school student with more
interest than aptitude for history. He applies this little knowledge about
as effectively as a grade school drop-out. The fact that he has been
awarded
degrees cannot alter this sorry state of affairs. He might have worked
harder once for all I know, but now he only works busily, not diligently,
conscientiously or sensibly.

And he works by choice on the margins of a specialised field of study for
which he has not even bothered to master the basic accomplishment of
reading
the languages of the primary sources, all the while pretending to be an
original and estimable scholar.

If you wish to counter these statements, that have all been established
time
and again through undisputed proof and from repeated examples, go ahead
and
do so. But simply saying that "valid arguments" have not been presented
when
this is flatly untrue is not scholarly, not courteous, and not in the
least
convincing.

As I keep asking of Richardson and his supporters, please give us an
actual,
concrete argument in his favour for once, instead of always evading the
criticism. If it is readily available to you to do this, and yet you don't
wish to address the issues for some untold reason, perhaps you could at
least explain to us why it is NEVER attempted, by anyone.

Peter Stewart


Peter Stewart

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 23:30:08

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:ZXzDe.142402$dP1.495689@newsc.telia.net...
Peter,
it's you who have the problem. You have shown that you lack the capacity
to
validate medieval texts. That's ok, many do.

You are suggesting a specific charge that has not been made out. Unless you
are prepared to back this up with at least one example, there can be no
discussion - something that you claim to value.

Where have I shown the incapacity you allege?

If you avoid this straightforward question, your professional ethics will
become the subject of a new discussion.

Peter Stewart

Alaca

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Alaca » 21 jul 2005 00:14:14

IEJ wrote: ZXzDe.142402$dP1.495689@newsc.telia.net,


Inger,
As usual you prove to be a pretentious prat,
not able to read or comprehend English.

--
¨°º°¨Peter Alaca¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨

IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 21 jul 2005 00:28:54

Sorry Peter but you shown that you aren't capable of performing a discussion
using valid arguments. That's your problem. You are the one who claimed that
I only looked for degrees. I proved you wrong. If you have any valid
argument what so ever please state you case in a scholarly way. If not, then
you have to accept that you aren't up for it. Easy as that.

Inger E

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:QfADe.53928$oJ.11565@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:ZXzDe.142402$dP1.495689@newsc.telia.net...
Peter,
it's you who have the problem. You have shown that you lack the capacity
to
validate medieval texts. That's ok, many do.

You are suggesting a specific charge that has not been made out. Unless
you
are prepared to back this up with at least one example, there can be no
discussion - something that you claim to value.

Where have I shown the incapacity you allege?

If you avoid this straightforward question, your professional ethics will
become the subject of a new discussion.

Peter Stewart


Douglas Richardson royala

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 01:01:23

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Inger. Much appreciated.

I'm a fan of your's as well.

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

IEJ wrote:
Hans,
the day you yourself can present as good creditentials as Douglas
Richardson, http://www.royalancestry.net/biography.htm,
that day we might but only might be willing to listen to you but not if you
write such personal-abusive-attack on him or other scholars as you done
below.

Inger E

"Hans Vogels" <volucris@chello.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:a300f298.0507191156.7b4a756f@posting.google.com...
John,

I have to second the opinion of CED. He makes sense without having to
twist anything. Douglas Richardson should make an effort of learning
of his mistakes, not making them over and over. He should start
providing answers and not trying to counterattack with silly nonsense.
Read the files. I have been around for 2 1/2 years now and Douglas
could write a book on the answers that he could not, does not, will
not, can not give.

Writing a very bulky book for "Americans" does not skill him in
getting along with fellow researchers. At least not with skilled
researchers who know their facts and literature.

Back to CED. His logic approach does not go away with your ironic
remarks. Lot's of listers are fed up with Richardsons way of acting
that he can get along with his way of behaving. And I am one of them.
It is time that a decent wind starts blowing on this newsgroup.

Hans Vogels

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1121710717.006029.50580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!

Speaking of megalomania ... ;-)

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 01:06:06

<"Leo" wrote:
<
< Trying to defend Richardson only gives others the change to expose
him
< further, the less said the better for Richardson.

Dear Leo ~

If you have a problem with me, you should discuss it with me in private
like a grown adult.

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 01:14:13

Peter Stewart is running for the tall grasses - with his precious Litta
notes and his Harry Potter reviews in hand. Watch him go!

Peter is a dishonest flake. I don't believe a word he says. His self
confessed "sketchy and incomplete research" are well known here on the
newsgroup.

It's the same pattern - over and over again. Peter tells us what he
thinks we want to hear. Then, under scrutiny, he folds and runs for
cover. All the while, he proclaims loudly he is better than the rest
of us. He's a thoroughly dishonest man with no backbone. Prissy even.


DR

Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121879981.357838.276700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Spencer ~

I suspect that Peter Stewart is going to dribble out parts of his Harry
Potter reviews to us, much like he did his cribbed notes from Litta.
He must think this is keeping the newsgroup in suspense. Yawn!

Peter should stop beating around the bush, and say what he really
means. His lack of professionalism is very annoying.

What I really mean is exactly what I really said: I am not going to give you
what you want from Litta - look it up for yourself in the FHL. You lost the
argument hands down and I am not your research assistant.

And I am not going on about Harry Potter - YOU are.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 01:25:12

"Leo" wrote:
< Tried that---didn't work. You are unwilling or unable to substantiate

< smears.


Dear Leo ~

If you have a problem with me, you need to discuss it with me
privately.

If you insist on having an audience for your insults and complaints,
then you are not a very sincere person.

DR

CED

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av CED » 21 jul 2005 01:57:56

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Actually Tim, I went on vacation earlier this month for five days.
You, Mr. Stewart, and Leo fought with everyone the ENTIRE time I was
gone. I felt sorry for everyone who had to put up with your sick
abuse.


Mr. Richardson:

I repeat my question of two days ago:

"What is your evidence that Tim, Stewart and Leo "fought with everyone
the ENTIRE time I was gone." If you can't prove it, it must be mere
opinion. Go to the archives and show how they "fought" with
everybody."

You demand that others give proof of their claims. Now, you made a
claim. Prove it by showing the evidence.

CED


You clearly don't need me to cause trouble. You guys are trouble
enough.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 18 Jul, leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote:

A few days ago Richardson described as fantasy my description of him as a
bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be correct.

Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.

If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should withdraw
from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise he and
his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.

I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Leo

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Leo » 21 jul 2005 02:19:02

Tried that---didn't work. You are unwilling or unable to substantiate
smears.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Postings Under Aliases



"Leo" wrote:

Trying to defend Richardson only gives others the change to expose
him
further, the less said the better for Richardson.

Dear Leo ~

If you have a problem with me, you should discuss it with me in private
like a grown adult.

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


Leo van de Pas

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 21 jul 2005 02:40:02

We can keep running in your unending circle. You accused me of while you
were away of having fought with EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. How many times have I
asked you to substantiate your claim? Before we can go on, and I would love
to, you need to substantiate this. I don't think I have been insulting but
you are complaining all the time.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Postings Under Aliases


"Leo" wrote:
Tried that---didn't work. You are unwilling or unable to substantiate

smears.


Dear Leo ~

If you have a problem with me, you need to discuss it with me
privately.

If you insist on having an audience for your insults and complaints,
then you are not a very sincere person.

DR


Peter Stewart

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 03:55:33

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:W6BDe.142405$dP1.495657@newsc.telia.net...
Sorry Peter but you shown that you aren't capable of performing a
discussion
using valid arguments. That's your problem. You are the one who claimed
that
I only looked for degrees. I proved you wrong. If you have any valid
argument what so ever please state you case in a scholarly way. If not,
then
you have to accept that you aren't up for it. Easy as that.

Sorry Inger but you have just shown yourself up to be thoroughly UNETHICAL,
spiteful, stupid and dishonest. Need I go on?

First, you said that people should be able to defend themselves without fear
of personal attack, then you promptly tried to slur me with one of your own
that you are not prepared to back up, as soon as you had landed yourself
into a spot of bother with the phoney argument you had made.

Second, your statement was that I lack the "capacity to validate medieval
texts" and you haven't even tried to substantiate that by shifting to
"performing a discussion using valid arguements".

Thirdly, I ahve never claimed that you looked only for degrees - I
questioned you on what your meaning might be, and even this was NOT confined
to degrees. You can't lie about exchanges that passin in public just
yesterday.

Fourthly, you have NOT "proved" anything, and the lowliest third-rate
kindergarten drop-out would know that without needing to be told.

Fifthly, the case I have outlined to you has been filled in time and again,
with detail and evidence that NO-ONE has been able to deny, refute or
extenuate. That includes YOU.

Sixthly, your desperate assertion "Easy as that" is patent nonsense. Debate
is not easy. You are clearly finding it too hard for a start.

Peter Stewart


Inger E

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:QfADe.53928$oJ.11565@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:ZXzDe.142402$dP1.495689@newsc.telia.net...
Peter,
it's you who have the problem. You have shown that you lack the
capacity
to
validate medieval texts. That's ok, many do.

You are suggesting a specific charge that has not been made out. Unless
you
are prepared to back this up with at least one example, there can be no
discussion - something that you claim to value.

Where have I shown the incapacity you allege?

If you avoid this straightforward question, your professional ethics will
become the subject of a new discussion.

Peter Stewart




Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 04:06:10

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121904853.116518.74510@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart is running for the tall grasses - with his precious Litta
notes and his Harry Potter reviews in hand. Watch him go!

Peter is a dishonest flake. I don't believe a word he says. His self
confessed "sketchy and incomplete research" are well known here on the
newsgroup.

It's the same pattern - over and over again. Peter tells us what he
thinks we want to hear. Then, under scrutiny, he folds and runs for
cover. All the while, he proclaims loudly he is better than the rest
of us. He's a thoroughly dishonest man with no backbone. Prissy even.

Fancy being so keen to show us all his desperation! This is a man who says
that adults take their personal issues off-list and that abuse is bad for
SGM!

Having answered none of the criticisms made here against himself, he now
resorts to waffle and preposterous fibs.

I have run nowhere, stating again & again that I stand by everything I have
posted.

I am honest about whatever I post, and on one occasion this was from
"sketchy and incomplete research", so I said so up-front. When did a
"dishonest flake" do that?

I haven't "folded" on any matter, and I have NEVER proclaimed myself better
than whoever Richardson's "the rest of us" might be.

The idea that I am "prissy" is so inaccurate as to be scoffed out of court
by any sensible reader.

I challenge Richardson to provide the newsgroup with even ONE example of
dishonesty on my part that amounts to more than a figment of his own wishful
thinking.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 04:17:24

"Alaca" <P.Alaca@2075.NN> wrote in message
news:42dedaf4$0$8332$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl...
IEJ wrote: ZXzDe.142402$dP1.495689@newsc.telia.net,


Inger,
As usual you prove to be a pretentious prat,

Hear, hear. She has a history of this kind of behaviour?

I wonder if her faculty are aware of the unethical, hypocritical and just
plain dumb way that she slurs other people and then declines to support her
claims.

Peter Stewart

IEJ

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av IEJ » 21 jul 2005 04:28:53

Peter and Peter,
both of you are so out of scholarly behavior as can be. Peter 'Alaca' is
once again trying to tell lies.
What he doesn't know about Medieval History can fill a library. That hadn't
been a big thing if he hadn't tried to make believe that he knew more about
a subject he isn't specialist in then those who are,
and if he had been aware that he don't know anything what so ever about me
as a person.
As I said and better repeat again: A person under personal attacks has the
right to defend him-/herself without being abused.
Neither of you have up to this very day been able to present one single
valid proof nor a valid argument. That's ok. Too many here seem to have been
sleeping during Science Method lessons in subject History from Secondary
school all way up during their University years. You aren't too old to learn
and there are plenty of good books of how to present a valid argumentation.

Inger E

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:8tEDe.54089$oJ.21154@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Alaca" <P.Alaca@2075.NN> wrote in message
news:42dedaf4$0$8332$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl...
IEJ wrote: ZXzDe.142402$dP1.495689@newsc.telia.net,


Inger,
As usual you prove to be a pretentious prat,

Hear, hear. She has a history of this kind of behaviour?

I wonder if her faculty are aware of the unethical, hypocritical and just
plain dumb way that she slurs other people and then declines to support
her
claims.

Peter Stewart


Peter Stewart

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 04:42:46

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:VDEDe.142408$dP1.495749@newsc.telia.net...
Peter and Peter,
both of you are so out of scholarly behavior as can be. Peter 'Alaca' is
once again trying to tell lies.
What he doesn't know about Medieval History can fill a library. That
hadn't
been a big thing if he hadn't tried to make believe that he knew more
about
a subject he isn't specialist in then those who are,
and if he had been aware that he don't know anything what so ever about me
as a person.
As I said and better repeat again: A person under personal attacks has the
right to defend him-/herself without being abused.
Neither of you have up to this very day been able to present one single
valid proof nor a valid argument. That's ok. Too many here seem to have
been
sleeping during Science Method lessons in subject History from Secondary
school all way up during their University years. You aren't too old to
learn
and there are plenty of good books of how to present a valid
argumentation.

No, it's NOT "ok".

You claimed that I lack the "capacity to validate medieval texts". You have
failed to provide any evidence for this when asked.

The idea that you should lecture others on "scholarly" behaviour after that
offense against academic ethics is preposterous.

You should support the allegation or withdraw it.

Further assertions about what others have or have not done are not going to
save you from the consequences of your own words.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 07:36:57

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
< We can keep running in your unending circle. You accused me of while
you
< were away of having fought with EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. How many times
have I
< asked you to substantiate your claim? Before we can go on, and I
would love
< to, you need to substantiate this. I don't think I have been
insulting but
< you are complaining all the time.

Leo - do please take Spencer's advice. Have a hot toddy and take a
long nap. You'll feel much better.

DR

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 07:50:46

Peter has challenged me to provide one example of his dishonesty.
That's easy.

Peter claimed that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
"cognatus" in medieval England. I said no, he was wrong.

Turns out Peter was relying on a Latin dictionary to tell him what
"cognatus" meant. He had no familiarity with medieval Latin in English
records. I showed Peter was a fraud.

Now, Peter says he detests me. Do tell, Peter, do tell.

DR

Peter Stewart wrote:

< Fancy being so keen to show us all his desperation! This is a man who
says
< that adults take their personal issues off-list and that abuse is bad
for
< SGM!
<
< Having answered none of the criticisms made here against himself, he
now
< resorts to waffle and preposterous fibs.
<
< I have run nowhere, stating again & again that I stand by everything
I have
< posted.
<
< I am honest about whatever I post, and on one occasion this was from
< "sketchy and incomplete research", so I said so up-front. When did a
< "dishonest flake" do that?
<
< I haven't "folded" on any matter, and I have NEVER proclaimed myself
better
< than whoever Richardson's "the rest of us" might be.
<
< The idea that I am "prissy" is so inaccurate as to be scoffed out of
court
< by any sensible reader.
<
< I challenge Richardson to provide the newsgroup with even ONE example
of
< dishonesty on my part that amounts to more than a figment of his own
wishful
< thinking.
<
< Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 08:25:01

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Peter has challenged me to provide one example of his dishonesty.
That's easy.

Peter claimed that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
"cognatus" in medieval England. I said no, he was wrong.

This is yet another example of Richardson's own dishonesty: it has been
pointed out to him many times that I said "brother-in-law" was A (not
THE) usual meaning of "cognatus".

Turns out Peter was relying on a Latin dictionary to tell him what
"cognatus" meant. He had no familiarity with medieval Latin in
English records. I showed Peter was a fraud.

What else but a dictionary is to be relied upon for determinng the
meaning of a word? My statements about this were backed up by the
PRINCIPAL definition given in the STANDARD dictionary of medieval Latin
in BRITAIN. Any fraud or dishonesty here would have to be slated to the
editors, and to the Venerable Bede who provided the EXPLICIT and
unarguable proof of all that was claimed by me.

Now, Peter says he detests me. Do tell, Peter, do tell.

On the contrary, I have frequently had occasion to remind people that I
have never met you and don't know or care what you are like personally.
I have probably said I detest a post of yours or some aspects of your
behaviour - who wouldn't? - but you are making a specific claim that is
clearly different from that. You then need to do the telling, not me.
Where have I said that I "detest" you?

However, I do detest lies, and you are going about proving to us all
that you are made of them.

On "cognatus" you have been corrected by others quite independently of
me. Do they have to tell you again that you are flatly misrepresenting
the discussion and its outcome? As usual, you lost the argument: you
can't now win the memory of it by lying.

Your desperation is still hurting only you, not me.

Peter Stewart

R. Battle

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av R. Battle » 21 jul 2005 08:29:13

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Peter has challenged me to provide one example of his dishonesty.
That's easy.

Peter claimed that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
"cognatus" in medieval England. I said no, he was wrong.
snip


I believe I brought up this point before, but apparently it didn't make an
impression. Peter Stewart actually said that "brother-in-law" was *a*
quite usual meaning, not *the* quite usual meaning. The rather large
difference in meaning between those two phrases is, I think, apparent. I
hardly know any Latin (yet) and so can't comment on the veracity of P.S.'s
statement from personal experience, but I do have a passing acquaintance
with the language in which the comment was written. ;-)

-Robert Battle

Chris Phillips

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 21 jul 2005 08:41:20

R. Battle wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Peter has challenged me to provide one example of his dishonesty.
That's easy.

Peter claimed that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
"cognatus" in medieval England. I said no, he was wrong.
snip

I believe I brought up this point before, but apparently it didn't make an
impression. Peter Stewart actually said that "brother-in-law" was *a*
quite usual meaning, not *the* quite usual meaning. The rather large
difference in meaning between those two phrases is, I think, apparent.

Yes. I have also pointed this out. It has been pointed out a number of
times. It's depressing to see it is still being brought up.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 09:00:19

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dbnjjf$p3r$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
R. Battle wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Peter has challenged me to provide one example of his dishonesty.
That's easy.

Peter claimed that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
"cognatus" in medieval England. I said no, he was wrong.
snip

I believe I brought up this point before, but apparently it didn't make
an
impression. Peter Stewart actually said that "brother-in-law" was *a*
quite usual meaning, not *the* quite usual meaning. The rather large
difference in meaning between those two phrases is, I think, apparent.

Yes. I have also pointed this out. It has been pointed out a number of
times. It's depressing to see it is still being brought up.

Thanks to Robert and Chris.

The context of my original statement made this even more plain - I said that
"brother-in-law" was a usual meaning that should be taken into account
whenever it can't be ruled out. To read this with the definite article would
be to make a nonsense out of a straightforward comment, and I fail to see
how anyone could genuinely do so.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the same thing is
thrown up yet again (again....), as no doubt it will be. This is about the
fifth go-round.

I can only take it as a back-handed compliment, because if Richardson could
get any closer to proving me dishonest as he claimed he would certainly bend
every effort to do so.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Flagrante dilecto = Red handed

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 09:00:56

Dear Robert ~

Peter Stewart has challenged me to give an example of his dishonesty.
That's real easy.

This is exactly what Peter Stewart said in his post dated October 17,
2004. I think the language is plain enough.

Peter Stewart: "Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though
brother-in-law was quite usual and should be considered whenever we
don't know enough to rule it out." END OF QUOTE.

I would not in ANY sense state that brother-in-law was the "quite
usual" meaning of "cognatus" in medieval England (which was the context
in which we were discussing the terminology). In fact, I know of NO
instances of the word cognatus meaning brother-in-law in medieval
England, certainly from 1200 forward. This tell me that Peter Stewart
has little or no working knowledge of medieval English records. That
also makes him a fraud.

I should mention that while doing research for my Magna Carta Ancestry
book, I encountered a document where a man referred to his kinsman
"cognatus" who had the same last name and also to his wife's brother in
the same sentence. The two relatives were different people. One was a
brother-in-law and one was a "cognatus" [kinsman]. As I recall, the
document was dated about 1250 in England.

Simply put, Peter Stewart doesn't know what he is talking about. He's
a fraud. I caught Peter "flagrante dilecto." In case Peter has to
look that expression up in his precious Latin dictionary, it means "RED
HANDED."

No wonder Peter says detests me. Do tell, Peter, do tell.

Now, what was his saying about his Harry Potter reviews?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


R. Battle wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Peter has challenged me to provide one example of his dishonesty.
That's easy.

Peter claimed that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
"cognatus" in medieval England. I said no, he was wrong.
snip

I believe I brought up this point before, but apparently it didn't make an
impression. Peter Stewart actually said that "brother-in-law" was *a*
quite usual meaning, not *the* quite usual meaning. The rather large
difference in meaning between those two phrases is, I think, apparent. I
hardly know any Latin (yet) and so can't comment on the veracity of P.S.'s
statement from personal experience, but I do have a passing acquaintance
with the language in which the comment was written. ;-)

-Robert Battle

Leo van de Pas

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 21 jul 2005 09:25:02

You are welcome to his asylum, you two make a handsome couple.


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: Postings Under Aliases


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
We can keep running in your unending circle. You accused me of while
you
were away of having fought with EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. How many times
have I
asked you to substantiate your claim? Before we can go on, and I
would love
to, you need to substantiate this. I don't think I have been
insulting but
you are complaining all the time.

Leo - do please take Spencer's advice. Have a hot toddy and take a
long nap. You'll feel much better.

DR


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»