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