Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Peter Stewart

Re: Flagrante dilecto = Red handed

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 09:35:14

Others are of course free to add their comments and reflections on this
matter - once again, consensus may help where sense can't get through.
Comments interspersed:

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121932856.203504.292260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
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).

Nor did I say that "brother-in-law" was THE quite usual meaning - this has
JUST been pointed out to Richardson, yet again. The rest of the sentence, as
I said a while ago, RULES OUT his absurd & now obviously deliberate
miscomprehension of my plain meaning.

In fact, I know of NO instances of the word cognatus meaning
brother-in-law in medieval England, certainly from 1200 forward.

Medieval England had been going for longer before 1200 than it lasted
afterwards.

This tell me that Peter Stewart has little or no working knowledge of
medieval
English records. That also makes him a fraud.

How? Even if your nonsense was correct, where have I ever made claims about
my "working knowledge of medieval English records"?

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.

So in Richardon's feeble grasp of logic this proves that no-one could any
longer read the Bible or Bede to pick up their different usages of the word
"cognatus"!

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 IT DOES NOT. Which word do you suppose means "red" and which "handed"?
Neither of them - "flagrante dilecto" is an equivalent phrase, not a
translation, for "red-handed". Your subject line got it right, by accident,
but your statement above is wrong.

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

I have already asked you to prove this claim. If true, it should be easy
enough to do so.

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

I said that I wrote ONE review, not two, not several.

Richardson is determined to show anyone who had lingering doubts that my
attitude to his posting behaviour is fully justified. He distorts anything
and everything shamelessly, because he has no way to sustain himself in
legitimate argument.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 21 jul 2005 09:49:08

In message of 21 Jul, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

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

Yet on the previous day we had:

In message of 20 Jul, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Leo ~

Attacking people on the newsgroup doesn't improve the newsgroup. It
only hurts the newsgroup. Please show some self restraint.

DR

The only word that describes this is: hypocrisy.

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Flagrante dilecto = Red handed

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 10:59:17

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:67JDe.54319$oJ.37425@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

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 IT DOES NOT. Which word do you suppose means "red" and which "handed"?
Neither of them - "flagrante dilecto" is an equivalent phrase, not a
translation, for "red-handed". Your subject line got it right, by
accident, but your statement above is wrong.

Or rather "flagrante delicto" - still neither "red" nor "handed", of course.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2005 11:33:09

Hear Hear.

Hans Vogels

Tim Powys-Lybbe schreef:
In message of 21 Jul, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

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

Yet on the previous day we had:

In message of 20 Jul, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Leo ~

Attacking people on the newsgroup doesn't improve the newsgroup. It
only hurts the newsgroup. Please show some self restraint.

DR

The only word that describes this is: hypocrisy.

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

Gjest

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2005 11:42:39

Douglas Richardson is not interested in what others actually write. His
reality is what he thinks others write. That shows he has lost touch
with reality. A sad end of a researcher with more than 40 years
experience. It puts him almost on the same level als DSH.

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 12:02:34

<volucris@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1121942559.543885.63090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Richardson is not interested in what others actually write. His
reality is what he thinks others write. That shows he has lost touch
with reality. A sad end of a researcher with more than 40 years
experience. It puts him almost on the same level als DSH.

He wishes.

Hines is usually less moronic than Richardson, although a champion fool in
his own right - and a bit less unscrupulous in distorting and inventing,
most of the time.

He is also less sanctimonious and hypocritical, sometimes elevating his
sights to treat others fairly and/or humorously.

But when Hines does lose his grip, more and more often lately, he is the
more decidedly batty.

Of course they are equally vicious and incapable of arguing in their own
defense.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2005 13:12:21

Hello Inger,

I do not think that anything more on the subject of Douglas Richardson
needs to be said. His response to my answer was sufficient. He clearly
is someone with two faces, with a Janus-head. I do not doubt that he
can be quite charming and helpful if he chooses but I have no need to
get better aquainted. You mention that he has the right to defend him.
Truely that applies to everyone, even to Peter Stewart. If you look
back carefully to some of the verbal-matches you can't help but see
that in the beginning there usually is a interchange of facts and
information. After that the interpretations start comming in. Look
closely and you'll notice that Douglas is allways the one who starts
reading between the lines. Not reacting on the actual answer but on
what he thinks that his opponent writes. Over and over he gets
confronted with his shortcomings. If he makes the effort of reading
carefully he would save himselve and the newsgroup a lot of negative
vibrations.

Trust is something anyone needs to work on. If your representation of
the facts are sound nobody will complain if you are still a pain in the
ass. When you try to keep civil all the time in combination with the
previous than trust can start to come in the picture. Trust has nothing
to do with writing books with or without credentials. Credentials are
no garanty for quality work.

As a autodidact I rub noses with professors with crendentials. Why?
Because I know more on certain subjects than they with their education,
and because I want to know more and more. Why? Because as a local
researcher one has more drive to dive headlong into the known local,
regional, provincial history than one who has had an education in a far
away university. In the past there would have been a world of
difference between academic and nonacademic circles. Nowadays regional
societies are stimulated in their research and there are provincial
meetings for the researchers whether local ones or academic ones.
Enhancement of information and understanding is priority. It leads to
lots of publications that become available for the history and
archeological sections of the universities.

My niche in this Dutch world has become the local, regional en
provincial history from the angle of the genealogy of the nobility and
patrician families in the period 1100-1400. Mostly a construction or
reconstruction of the leading families. Since 1990 I have written quite
a few articles and have contributed to publications. The quality is
getting better and better. And that without academic credentials. In
the future I might go for a doctoral thesis on the nobility of the
duchy of Brabant. They say that I missed my calling. People are
mentioning that I should have been a teacher. I'd like to educate
people and enhance knowledge. Mostly I would like people to get along
and stimulate an interest in History and Genealogy.

Bianca of Namur? Do you mean a member of the family of the Belgian
counts of Namour (Namen in Dutch)?

With regards,
Hans Vogels

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jul 2005 14:27:49

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.

Except when you speak of people fondling their own buttocks
(paraphrasing), or "wetting themselves."

Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 14:40:55

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121952469.423038.291280@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.

Except when you speak of people fondling their own buttocks
(paraphrasing), or "wetting themselves."

Every human body has the same parts & functions, comical or otherwise - what
has this to do with unhinged assumptions about sexual orientation?

I'm pretty sure I have never used the term "buttocks" on SGM. The comparison
to a "baboon scratching its fundament" and the remark about over-excited
incontinence were not references to anything remotely erogenous in my view.

Apparently you don't see it the same way. The mind would boggle, no doubt,
if the mind could encompass your thought processes to start with.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jul 2005 15:22:48

2005 07:11:07 -0700

Every human body has the same parts & functions, comical or otherwise - what
has this to do with unhinged assumptions about sexual orientation?


I'm pretty sure I have never used the term "buttocks" on SGM. The
comparison
to a "baboon scratching its fundament" and the remark about
over-excited
incontinence were not references to anything remotely erogenous in my
view.

Apparently you don't see it the same way. The mind would boggle, no
doubt,
if the mind could encompass your thought processes to start with.

Peter Stewart
----------


So witty and sharp and with an answer for everything, eh ... "Peter"?

John Brandon

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jul 2005 16:01:04

Every human body has the same parts & functions, comical or otherwise - what
has this to do with unhinged assumptions about sexual orientation?


I'm pretty sure I have never used the term "buttocks" on SGM. The
comparison
to a "baboon scratching its fundament" and the remark about
over-excited
incontinence were not references to anything remotely erogenous in my
view.

Apparently you don't see it the same way. The mind would boggle, no
doubt,
if the mind could encompass your thought processes to start with.

Peter Stewart
----------


So witty and sharp and with an answer for everything, eh ... "Peter"?


;-)

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 17:47:48

My comments are interspersed below. DR

volucris@chello.nl wrote:
< Hello Inger,
<
< I do not think that anything more on the subject of Douglas
Richardson
< needs to be said. His response to my answer was sufficient. He
clearly
< is someone with two faces, with a Janus-head.

I'm very consistent, down to earth, level headed. No Janus-head here.

<I do not doubt that he can be quite charming and helpful if he chooses
but I <have no need to get better aquainted.

I look for the good in others. I usually find it.

<You mention that he has the right to defend him.

Yes, I do have the right to defend myself and I exercise it.

< Truely that applies to everyone, even to Peter Stewart. If you look
< back carefully to some of the verbal-matches you can't help but see
< that in the beginning there usually is a interchange of facts and
< information. After that the interpretations start comming in. Look
< closely and you'll notice that Douglas is allways the one who starts
< reading between the lines.

When you argue with someone, Hans, you should avoid the words "always"
or "never." "Fredquently" or "seldom" work better. Try it again one
time, o.k.?

< Not reacting on the actual answer but on what he thinks that his
opponent
< writes. Over and over he gets confronted with his shortcomings. If he
makes
< the effort of reading carefully he would save himselve and the
newsgroup a
< lot of negative vibrations.

I often ignore Peter Stewart. However, I don't like his name calling,
lying, or gross misrepresentations.

Trust is something anyone needs to work on. If your representation of
the facts are sound nobody will complain if you are still a pain in the
ass. When you try to keep civil all the time in combination with the
previous than trust can start to come in the picture. Trust has nothing
to do with writing books with or without credentials. Credentials are
no garanty for quality work.

I have credentials, Hans.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 jul 2005 18:32:02

Yep, Pogue Stewart is obviously hiding in the closet -- where he does
all sorts of inappropriate things.

Amusing....

DSH

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121952469.423038.291280@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| >>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.
|
| Except when you speak of people fondling their own buttocks
| (paraphrasing), or "wetting themselves."

Gjest

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2005 15:51:56

Hello Douglas,

Nice seeing you back. Alas in the wrong sub-string. You should have
made an effort to react to my answer to you. It was all yours. At least
I did. I read carefully what you wrote and countered on the points of
your answer. I have to ass, as you know, English is not my everyday
language. But what did you do. Let's see:

Solitaire wrote:
< Take this crap to email.

I totally agree, Solitaire.
DR

Now we see you budding in on my answer to Inger. That certainly will
give her a better view on the person Douglas Richardson. That ain't
quite nice. Let's analyse this: arogant behavior, unable to cope with a
serious answer, unable to read carefully, nosy as hell.

To answer you on your remarks:

I'm very consistent, down to earth, level headed. No Janus-head here.

That ain't quite good. You're seem to forget that you thus are implying
that you act normally as you allways do. As lots of people on the
newsgroup don't have a high opinion of you, and other people do, they
must be thus unaware of the fact that you're only putting a shown on
for their benefit. At least if you show us your true face. If not than
you are trying to fool us on the newsgroup. You can't have it bothwise.
You show two faces so you're a Janus figure. You can fool one person.
You can fool many persons, but you can't fool everyone all the time
(Abraham Lincoln?).

I look for the good in others. I usually find it.

Keep on looking. You are unnessessarily antagonising people, and thus
making it hard for you.

Yes, I do have the right to defend myself and I exercise it.

Defending is not nessessary if you let the facts speak and not your
opinion. Occasionly admitting that you made a wrong conclusion helps.
Avoid digging in your heels. And start giving answers on the questions
that have not been properly answered. CED is helping you on that
territory. Ignoring those open questions do not make them go away.

When you argue with someone, Hans, you should avoid the words "always" or "never." "Fredquently" or "seldom" work better. Try it again one time, o.k.?

Douglas, a rose by any other name would still smell (and prick) the
same. From what I saw in the discussions my conclusion was a valid one.
You calling it differently does not change the facts. My observations.
My words. Swallow it or suffocate.

I often ignore Peter Stewart. However, I don't like his name calling, lying, or gross misrepresentations.

What you do not like is the clearness in which Peter Stewart is capable
of putting the finger on your sore spots. If your presentation of the
facts is correct he would have no beef with you. But you have habit of
jumping to conclusions before the discussion is over. Peter can't stand
that and rubs it under your nose. That's something you can't stand.
Since you carry a big bag with unfinished business with you everytime
you start a new string or comment it is easy for him to confront you
with those items. If you call that name calling so be it. You should
not forget that that happens in a twoway direction. There are moments
in which it looks if everyone is picking on Peter. Chapeau for his
ability to answer every attack in a sharp and sometimes amusing erudite
way. There are no gross misrepresentations. Only unfinished answers.

I have credentials, Hans.

Your credentials were not at stake. Your conduct was. Please read
carefully what I write. What anyone writes for that matter. Many of
your remarks are totally unnessessary. It looks like you delight in
fighting. But then again you will call that discussions. For me it is
the same rose.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

P.S. If you care to remark to me on my lines do it in this sub-string
and not my communications to other people. That would dimish further my
impression of you.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»