Firstly for the record for some technical reason probably I'm not able
to respond to your reaction on my lines to John Brandon. So therefore
a new string.
Secondly I finaly seem to have struck a nerve. I have remarked in the
past on the silly discussions between you and Leo and between you and
Peter Stewart. You never seemed bothered with my remarks. Why now?
Maybe because I voiced them a bit harder?
My further remarks are placed between your lines.
Datum:2005-07-19 13:58:36 PST
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 too have years of correspondence with fellow researchers, 31 years
to recall (I started young) It is still civil and cordial, in writing,
and in the newsgroup I frequently visit. That is something that I can
not say of you in the last 2 1/2 years. Were and why did you go wrong?
I do not question your conduct in private. I comment only on your for
everyone on the newsgroup visible reactions.
I do draw the line when people lie, distort, misrepresent, steal other
people's work, and construe facts out of their context.
That maybe true in your view to justify yourself. But you do it
anyway. You think to much on what you think is written between the
lines. You react to quickly when you should wait a day or so. Things
might not be as they seem to be at first hand. Many a times you have
been asked to provide an answer. Still you dodge, evade and start
stepping on other ones toes. It starts to look like a pattern. But on
the other hand I do not want to justify the way Peter Stewart reacts
to your posts/answers. But in all that writing he does he has kept a
constant critical and professional view to anything and anyone that
comes his way on subjects that he knows something on.
I also don't care much for drama queens.
You are making quite a show of yourselve and not all is favourable. So
do not blame the kettle that it is black. The "Gordon Hale"-method of
countering of Peter Stewart is energy consuming. Better would be if he
kept it short and businesslike. That way you would not be inclined to
take things personal. Once something is known or twisted out of
context is can be used against you. Some people with nothing else to
do live on the prospect of goading someone to reaction. Stick to the
facts and avoid bringing opninions as facts. Face the fact that there
are always people around that know more on a subject then you.
Painting them black does not win an argument based on facts and logic.
Speaking of misrepresentations,
I have voiced my opinion formed by myselve on my observations of the
past period. You can like it or not. It does not change it one bit.
You do not know me but undoubtly have formed one based on my writings.
you have made one yourself. You have alleged in your post that my two books
were written for Americans.
It was the remark "Americans" and it was used as a pun. John Brandon
was painting a black and white (them and us) situation. As I am a
British born Dutchman I naturaly belong to the wrong side
humor and selfmockery would do a world of good on this Newsgroup. By
the way the quote can be read in the following substract.
Van:John Brandon (starbuck95@hotmail.com)
Onderwerp:Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne
de Sabran [NB: contains genealogical discussion]
View this article only
Discussies:soc.genealogy.medieval
Datum:2005-07-18 12:36:54 PST
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_.
This is not true.
Of course I'm aware of this fact. I'm not daft, I have been around for
2 1/2 years. I have seen the advertisments, the postponements, the
praises, the reviews and the order correspondence.
Rather, I wrote my books to be reference works for the entire English
speaking world.
No problem with that. We all want our products making a difference and
enhancing the known knowledge.
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.
The remarks I made to John Brandon have nothing to do with your books.
I have not seen them so I can not comment on them. A few years back I
once enquired with you privately on the genealogical material of the
ancestry of Geoffrey Plantagenet, count of Anjou. I never received an
answer but later on it became clear to me that the book starts with
Geoffrey.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
With regards,
Hans Vogels
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 ...