Magna Carta Ancestry

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
paul bulkley

Magna Carta Ancestry

Legg inn av paul bulkley » 15 jul 2005 00:05:02

Many of the emails that have addressed the above
subject, and in particular Douglas Richardson's work,
suggest many subscribers are not particularly nice.

Instead of giving Richardson credit for the enormous
amount of work invested, one is obliged to read page
after page of snide criticism. And yet this is a work
and effort few would be capable of undertaking, and I
take off my hat to Douglas. Even if every line of his
work possesses errors, I still take off my hat. How
very very lucky to have a fellow subscriber to invest
so much time for the benefit of all. And I would also
like to express my appreciation of the amount of
detailed information that Douglas has provided for
many subscribers.

Now I read Rosie Bevans patronising sneering remark

"his continuing deficiency is a lack of understanding
of the material he uses, and the superficiality of his
research. Thankfully most of the RPA is a completion
of other people's work which makes its accuracy of a
fair standard"

Well. Well. Well. What kind thoughts Rosie. It would
be of considerable interest to analyse how you arrived
at such a conclusion particularly as you admit that
much of Richardson's material is of other people's
work.

As your presumed concern is a lack of respect of
Richardson's work and the inference of error, I might
remind you we are all full of error. It is a feature
of the human race, and you are not excluded.

I will remind you that you err in your choice of
respected experts. It is not important but you
recommended that lunatic "down under" which warns me
not to accept any opinion of yours without a large
pinch of salt.

Fools can criticise - all that is required is a
malicious heart.

It is tragic that so many miss the pleasure of life in
the admiration, the respect, and the assisting of
others regardless of their failings. Fortunately in
this group there are those without an agenda, and
hopefully it includes Rosie Bevan. To them I take off
my hat again.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: OT Re: Magna Carta Ancestry

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 15 jul 2005 00:15:15

"Leo" wrote:

<SNIP>

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

This newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, not about your fantasies,
Leo. Please stay on topic.

DR

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: OT Re: Magna Carta Ancestry

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 15 jul 2005 00:22:14

In message of 15 Jul, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

"Leo" wrote:

SNIP

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

This newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, not about your fantasies,
Leo. Please stay on topic.

As much as you do? (Hypocrite.)

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

Leo

OT Re: Magna Carta Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo » 15 jul 2005 00:26:01

Dear Paul,

To me you take a one-sided position. Richardson is the holy, innocent victim
of a smear campaign by nasty people.

Where two people argue, usually, two are at fault.

Especially lately Richardson has allowed himself to be reduced to a bar-room
brawler.

Why do you think several people have _become_ aggressive towards Richardson?

He preaches when he is in no position to do so. When people asked
questions, often he would ignore it. If people say 'justify A' he would
reply with an attack on aspect B, ignoring that there seems to be a need to
justify A.

Has Richardson done a lot of hard work? Yes no-one denies this, but also
much of it is based on work by others and, apparently, he has not given
credit where credit should have been given.

He claims abilities he does not have. It has been pointed out that his
knowledge of Latin is not sufficient for the kind of work he is trying to
do.

Richardson preaches about being _collegial_ while he is the most uncollegial
person around (well with one or two others).

Have you followed his attacks on me? How justified were those? What right
has he to demand answers? What right has he to say to people "butt out" I am
talking to Tim Powys-Lybbe and only he is allowed to reply? These are not
literally his words but the message is the same.

I was critical about Richardson for about two years touting his book on
gen-med when we are asked not to. His collegial attitude displayed when
people asked questions : "I know the answer but to get it you have to buy my
book". How much more should be said about the a so polite and collegial
Richardson?

I am sorry, but his kettle is very black. Is it irredeeminly black? That is
up to Richardson.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 8:03 AM
Subject: Magna Carta Ancestry


Many of the emails that have addressed the above
subject, and in particular Douglas Richardson's work,
suggest many subscribers are not particularly nice.

Instead of giving Richardson credit for the enormous
amount of work invested, one is obliged to read page
after page of snide criticism. And yet this is a work
and effort few would be capable of undertaking, and I
take off my hat to Douglas. Even if every line of his
work possesses errors, I still take off my hat. How
very very lucky to have a fellow subscriber to invest
so much time for the benefit of all. And I would also
like to express my appreciation of the amount of
detailed information that Douglas has provided for
many subscribers.

Now I read Rosie Bevans patronising sneering remark

"his continuing deficiency is a lack of understanding
of the material he uses, and the superficiality of his
research. Thankfully most of the RPA is a completion
of other people's work which makes its accuracy of a
fair standard"

Well. Well. Well. What kind thoughts Rosie. It would
be of considerable interest to analyse how you arrived
at such a conclusion particularly as you admit that
much of Richardson's material is of other people's
work.

As your presumed concern is a lack of respect of
Richardson's work and the inference of error, I might
remind you we are all full of error. It is a feature
of the human race, and you are not excluded.

I will remind you that you err in your choice of
respected experts. It is not important but you
recommended that lunatic "down under" which warns me
not to accept any opinion of yours without a large
pinch of salt.

Fools can criticise - all that is required is a
malicious heart.

It is tragic that so many miss the pleasure of life in
the admiration, the respect, and the assisting of
others regardless of their failings. Fortunately in
this group there are those without an agenda, and
hopefully it includes Rosie Bevan. To them I take off
my hat again.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


Douglas Richardson royala

Re: OT Leo's Fantasies

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 15 jul 2005 01:13:41

Dear Leo ~

Perhaps it would have been better it you had changed your post to read
"OT Leo's Fantasies." That would have been more accurate I think.

DR



"Leo" wrote:
In the past I suggested you needed glasses, now I think you should enrol in
a "comprehension English" class. I changed the subject to OT --- maybe I do
no understand your request . But what is the Topic of Off Topic?

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: OT Re: Magna Carta Ancestry


"Leo" wrote:

SNIP

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

This newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, not about your fantasies,
Leo. Please stay on topic.

DR


Leo

Re: OT Re: Magna Carta Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo » 15 jul 2005 01:47:02

In the past I suggested you needed glasses, now I think you should enrol in
a "comprehension English" class. I changed the subject to OT --- maybe I do
no understand your request . But what is the Topic of Off Topic?

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: OT Re: Magna Carta Ancestry


"Leo" wrote:

SNIP

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

This newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, not about your fantasies,
Leo. Please stay on topic.

DR


Leo

OT Put up or shut up was Re: OT Leo's Fantasies

Legg inn av Leo » 15 jul 2005 02:46:01

You like being accurate? OK make my day-----go through the message you are
referring to and prove me wrong.........can you? The archives are there to
fall back on.
What is fact and what is fantasy in what I said?


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: OT Leo's Fantasies


Dear Leo ~

Perhaps it would have been better it you had changed your post to read
"OT Leo's Fantasies." That would have been more accurate I think.

DR



"Leo" wrote:
In the past I suggested you needed glasses, now I think you should enrol
in
a "comprehension English" class. I changed the subject to OT --- maybe I
do
no understand your request . But what is the Topic of Off Topic?

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: OT Re: Magna Carta Ancestry


"Leo" wrote:

SNIP

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

This newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, not about your fantasies,
Leo. Please stay on topic.

DR




Peter Stewart

Re: Magna Carta Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jul 2005 04:33:01

Comments interspersed:

"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20050714220340.73888.qmail@web34205.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
Many of the emails that have addressed the above
subject, and in particular Douglas Richardson's work,
suggest many subscribers are not particularly nice.

Quite so.

Instead of giving Richardson credit for the enormous
amount of work invested, one is obliged to read page
after page of snide criticism.

No-one has denied the amount of work Richardson has done - the problem is
that this was misdirected. A far better result could have been achieved more
efficiently through methodical, scholarly work instead of his habitual,
erratic fossicking.

And yet this is a work and effort few would be capable
of undertaking, and I take off my hat to Douglas.

I should have thought that any literate freshman could come up with the same
result given similar incentive - the man wants to make a name for himself
and some money, but he doesn't want to spend time developing his skills
first. Your assessment of his supposedly rare capabilities is not backed up
by any rationale or evidence so far.

Even if every line of his work possesses errors, I still take
off my hat. How very very lucky to have a fellow subscriber
to invest so much time for the benefit of all.

And what pray would be the benefit of work containing errors on every line?
(Not that Richardson's work is nearly that bad, I expect).

And I would also like to express my appreciation of the
amount of detailed information that Douglas has provided for
many subscribers.

Some of whom still swallow it whole, unexamined....

Now I read Rosie Bevans patronising sneering remark

"his continuing deficiency is a lack of understanding
of the material he uses, and the superficiality of his
research. Thankfully most of the RPA is a completion [sic - but Rosie
wrote "compilation"]
of other people's work which makes its accuracy of a
fair standard"

Well. Well. Well. What kind thoughts Rosie. It would
be of considerable interest to analyse how you arrived
at such a conclusion particularly as you admit that
much of Richardson's material is of other people's
work.

Ho hum - Richardson's work has got to be largely a compilation drawn from
the work of others because he CAN'T READ THE SOURCES FOR HIMSELF. Original
scholarly work STARTS FROM SOURCES.

As your presumed concern is a lack of respect of
Richardson's work and the inference of error, I might
remind you we are all full of error. It is a feature
of the human race, and you are not excluded.

And no-one, least of all Rosie, has suggested that anyone must be free from
error, either to publish such work or to criticise it.

I will remind you that you err in your choice of
respected experts. It is not important but you
recommended that lunatic "down under" which warns me
not to accept any opinion of yours without a large
pinch of salt.

How kind of you to disparage me - I don't receive such fullsome, round-about
compliments every day of the week.

Fools can criticise - all that is required is a
malicious heart.

The wise can criticise too - all that is required is substance, as in
rebuttal although not provided or even attempted in Bulkley's post.

It is tragic that so many miss the pleasure of life in
the admiration, the respect, and the assisting of
others regardless of their failings. Fortunately in
this group there are those without an agenda, and
hopefully it includes Rosie Bevan. To them I take off
my hat again.

So now his hat is off, "hopefully" to Rosie, whom he set out to belittle.
Very collegial.

He will be eating it next - only he chews his various hats in bitter
silence, not having the courtesy or decency to admit his own errors and
malice.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»