Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
CED
Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Dear Mr. Richardson:
I wish to remind you of my promise to keep you honest with respect to
language, logic, and argumentation.
Note the following excerpt of my message of 18 July 2005:
"Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
being caught in error; hammer those with whom you disagree without
qualm, conscience, or mercy, using abusive and humiliating language;
and tend toward megalomania (note the number of times you refer to "my
book" and otherwise advertise your work).
"All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!
"I am not a genealogist; but I have a fairly good knowledge of medieval
history (and a respectable library to back it up) and was educated at
one of those last bastions offering a liberal education. Logic and
sound argumentation were at the center of that offering. Together with
your inability to handle languages, your weak, almost nonexistent,
logic and your twisted, unethical approach to argumentation will find
you wanting.
"I shall not challenge you on your attempts at genealogy. The archives
contain charges that you steal the work of others without attribution,
publish false connections in order to find "new discoveries," and that
your material is so shoddy that a better equipped editor is necesary to
give it a gloss of scholarly respect. These matters I shall leave to
the well prepared and respected genealogist members of this group. I
am certain that they will.
"I have seen the suggestions respecting your mental condition; of this
I
have no knowledge. I shall refrain from entering upon that matter.
"Be assured of this: as you hammer others with abuse, you will, most
assuredly, find at your ankles and heals an incessant nipping, with
dogged insistancy, concerning your use of language, your lack of logic,
and your method of argument."
Now there are two points upon which you must be reprimanded:
(1) In a message posted this day (21 July) you charged Peter Stewart
with being both dishonest and a fraud because he was relying upon a
Latin dictionary for the meaning of the word "cognatus," a Latin word;
and
(2) by way of background,(a post of 10 Feb 2005) you placed yourself,
using your personal experience, in a position of an expert the use of
Latin in England for the century after 1200 AD, while offering no
accepted proof of your expertise in Latin in that century.
Regarding the matter in charge (1), simply to disagree, regardless of
the merits of the substance of the disagreement, is not dishonest or
fraudulent, unless the party knowlingly introduces false or unreliable
evidence to discredit the other. Peter used a dictionary (and
supplemental evidence proved for the proper period). This is reliable
evidence and, therefore, it is neither dishonest nor fradulent. You
were wrong in charging Peter Stewart as dishonest and a fraud. You
should apologize not to make such unwarranted charges again.
Regarding the matter in charge (2), you set yourself up as an expert
in the Latin used in 13th Century England. Yet you give no proof of
expertise in Latin in any period. The normal procedure for
establishing proof of espertise is to publish a systematic study of the
subject; and then to subject that study to criticism by a peer group,
after which criticism a degree of validity of the study is established.
Have you ever published a study of 13th Century Latin as it was used
in England? No such study has ever been produced.
You did offer anecdotal evidence as proof of your position in the
definition of one word (again 10 Feb 2005); but that offering was
defeated by those whom you must admit as your peers. Moreover the
anecdotal evidence was all of your personal experience. No peer group
review at all. That does not even meet the undergraduate level of peer
group review. Instead, your peers challenged whether you knew Latin at
all. None accept your having any expetise in the Latin in use at any
time or any place. In fact, in one instance, one of those peers
demonstrated that you did not understand the common accidents in the
language.
You made no offering of support from any your peers repecting you
knowledge of the Latin used at any time or any place.
You should apolgize to the group for misrepresenation of you
qualification as an expert in the Latin used in 13th Century England.
You should not claim expertise in any field unless you first publish a
systematic study and have it subjected to proper criticism.
Unless you can make a showing of evidence to defeat these charges laid
against you, you should post no statements regarding Peter Stewart's
honesty; nor should you make any claims of expertise with respect to
the use of the Latin language at any time of any place.
CED
I wish to remind you of my promise to keep you honest with respect to
language, logic, and argumentation.
Note the following excerpt of my message of 18 July 2005:
"Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
being caught in error; hammer those with whom you disagree without
qualm, conscience, or mercy, using abusive and humiliating language;
and tend toward megalomania (note the number of times you refer to "my
book" and otherwise advertise your work).
"All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!
"I am not a genealogist; but I have a fairly good knowledge of medieval
history (and a respectable library to back it up) and was educated at
one of those last bastions offering a liberal education. Logic and
sound argumentation were at the center of that offering. Together with
your inability to handle languages, your weak, almost nonexistent,
logic and your twisted, unethical approach to argumentation will find
you wanting.
"I shall not challenge you on your attempts at genealogy. The archives
contain charges that you steal the work of others without attribution,
publish false connections in order to find "new discoveries," and that
your material is so shoddy that a better equipped editor is necesary to
give it a gloss of scholarly respect. These matters I shall leave to
the well prepared and respected genealogist members of this group. I
am certain that they will.
"I have seen the suggestions respecting your mental condition; of this
I
have no knowledge. I shall refrain from entering upon that matter.
"Be assured of this: as you hammer others with abuse, you will, most
assuredly, find at your ankles and heals an incessant nipping, with
dogged insistancy, concerning your use of language, your lack of logic,
and your method of argument."
Now there are two points upon which you must be reprimanded:
(1) In a message posted this day (21 July) you charged Peter Stewart
with being both dishonest and a fraud because he was relying upon a
Latin dictionary for the meaning of the word "cognatus," a Latin word;
and
(2) by way of background,(a post of 10 Feb 2005) you placed yourself,
using your personal experience, in a position of an expert the use of
Latin in England for the century after 1200 AD, while offering no
accepted proof of your expertise in Latin in that century.
Regarding the matter in charge (1), simply to disagree, regardless of
the merits of the substance of the disagreement, is not dishonest or
fraudulent, unless the party knowlingly introduces false or unreliable
evidence to discredit the other. Peter used a dictionary (and
supplemental evidence proved for the proper period). This is reliable
evidence and, therefore, it is neither dishonest nor fradulent. You
were wrong in charging Peter Stewart as dishonest and a fraud. You
should apologize not to make such unwarranted charges again.
Regarding the matter in charge (2), you set yourself up as an expert
in the Latin used in 13th Century England. Yet you give no proof of
expertise in Latin in any period. The normal procedure for
establishing proof of espertise is to publish a systematic study of the
subject; and then to subject that study to criticism by a peer group,
after which criticism a degree of validity of the study is established.
Have you ever published a study of 13th Century Latin as it was used
in England? No such study has ever been produced.
You did offer anecdotal evidence as proof of your position in the
definition of one word (again 10 Feb 2005); but that offering was
defeated by those whom you must admit as your peers. Moreover the
anecdotal evidence was all of your personal experience. No peer group
review at all. That does not even meet the undergraduate level of peer
group review. Instead, your peers challenged whether you knew Latin at
all. None accept your having any expetise in the Latin in use at any
time or any place. In fact, in one instance, one of those peers
demonstrated that you did not understand the common accidents in the
language.
You made no offering of support from any your peers repecting you
knowledge of the Latin used at any time or any place.
You should apolgize to the group for misrepresenation of you
qualification as an expert in the Latin used in 13th Century England.
You should not claim expertise in any field unless you first publish a
systematic study and have it subjected to proper criticism.
Unless you can make a showing of evidence to defeat these charges laid
against you, you should post no statements regarding Peter Stewart's
honesty; nor should you make any claims of expertise with respect to
the use of the Latin language at any time of any place.
CED
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121996364.659347.294530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<chomp>
Thank you, CED, for takng the trouble to set this out. Richardson is most
welcome to post his evidence for the charges he has made, and failure to do
this can harm no-one but himself.
I might add that I can't imagine any motive I could have to deceive the
newsgroup: I have no product to sell to readers, and never will have;
consequently there is nothing to be gained by impressing anyone with false
representations that would be exposed eventually.
Richardson on the other hand collects cash from SGM readers while he can
still bamboozle anyone into buying the books of a low-grade huckster. At the
same time he imagines that going into print (with the same publisher as
Roderick Stuart) will somehow ensure him a lasting reputation, having
observed that David Kelley's could withstand his published balderdash for so
long.
People like CED, who won't stand for lies in silence, are necessary to the
wellbeing of genealogy regardless of whether they pursue this study
professionally or as a hobby themselves.
Peter Stewart
news:1121996364.659347.294530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<chomp>
Unless you can make a showing of evidence to defeat these charges laid
against you, you should post no statements regarding Peter Stewart's
honesty; nor should you make any claims of expertise with respect to
the use of the Latin language at any time of any place.
Thank you, CED, for takng the trouble to set this out. Richardson is most
welcome to post his evidence for the charges he has made, and failure to do
this can harm no-one but himself.
I might add that I can't imagine any motive I could have to deceive the
newsgroup: I have no product to sell to readers, and never will have;
consequently there is nothing to be gained by impressing anyone with false
representations that would be exposed eventually.
Richardson on the other hand collects cash from SGM readers while he can
still bamboozle anyone into buying the books of a low-grade huckster. At the
same time he imagines that going into print (with the same publisher as
Roderick Stuart) will somehow ensure him a lasting reputation, having
observed that David Kelley's could withstand his published balderdash for so
long.
People like CED, who won't stand for lies in silence, are necessary to the
wellbeing of genealogy regardless of whether they pursue this study
professionally or as a hobby themselves.
Peter Stewart
-
solitaire
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
CED wrote:
Look, if you idiots want to bitch at each other about manners, take it somewhere
else -- you're a waste of bandwidth in the newsgroup.
Dear Mr. Richardson:
I wish to remind you of my promise to keep you honest with respect to
language, logic, and argumentation.
Note the following excerpt of my message of 18 July 2005:
"Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
Look, if you idiots want to bitch at each other about manners, take it somewhere
else -- you're a waste of bandwidth in the newsgroup.
-
Leo
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical methodology is
being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very important
as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust. And some people
just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling or unable to give.
And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands respect but is unable
or unwilling to give it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very important
as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust. And some people
just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling or unable to give.
And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands respect but is unable
or unwilling to give it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
CED wrote:
Dear Mr. Richardson:
I wish to remind you of my promise to keep you honest with respect to
language, logic, and argumentation.
Note the following excerpt of my message of 18 July 2005:
"Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
Look, if you idiots want to bitch at each other about manners, take it
somewhere else -- you're a waste of bandwidth in the newsgroup.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
CED wrote:
< Dear Mr. Richardson:
< You should apolgize to the group for misrepresenation of you
< qualification as an expert in the Latin used in 13th Century England.
< You should not claim expertise in any field unless you first publish
a
< systematic study and have it subjected to proper criticism.
<
< CED
I've published two systematic medieval studies, Plantagenet Ancestry
and Magna Carta Ancestry. Both are massive. The first has received
favorable reviews. The second one just came out.
Over the years, I've personally reviewed virtually every English
cartulary in print, charter by charter, and all ancient deeds in print,
page by page. I believe I'm more than familiar with the subject
matter. I don't call myself an expert as I'm still busy learning new
things.
DCR
P.S. By the way, the C in my initials stands for Charles. You know
the rest of my name. What do your initials stand for?
< Dear Mr. Richardson:
< You should apolgize to the group for misrepresenation of you
< qualification as an expert in the Latin used in 13th Century England.
< You should not claim expertise in any field unless you first publish
a
< systematic study and have it subjected to proper criticism.
<
< CED
I've published two systematic medieval studies, Plantagenet Ancestry
and Magna Carta Ancestry. Both are massive. The first has received
favorable reviews. The second one just came out.
Over the years, I've personally reviewed virtually every English
cartulary in print, charter by charter, and all ancient deeds in print,
page by page. I believe I'm more than familiar with the subject
matter. I don't call myself an expert as I'm still busy learning new
things.
DCR
P.S. By the way, the C in my initials stands for Charles. You know
the rest of my name. What do your initials stand for?
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
solitaire wrote:
< Look, if you idiots want to bitch at each other about manners, take
it
< somewhere else -- you're a waste of bandwidth in the newsgroup.
It does get a bit tedious, doesn't it?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Look, if you idiots want to bitch at each other about manners, take
it
< somewhere else -- you're a waste of bandwidth in the newsgroup.
It does get a bit tedious, doesn't it?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Solitaire has overlooked nothing, Leo. He wants you guys to stop
bitching and moaning and get back to medieval genealogy. Is that
possible?
DCR
"Leo" wrote:
< Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical
methodology is
< being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important
< as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust. And some
people
< just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling or unable
to give.
< And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands respect but is
unable
< or unwilling to give it.
bitching and moaning and get back to medieval genealogy. Is that
possible?
DCR
"Leo" wrote:
< Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical
methodology is
< being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important
< as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust. And some
people
< just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling or unable
to give.
< And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands respect but is
unable
< or unwilling to give it.
-
CED
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Mr. Mr. Richardson:
Comments are interspersed:
Neither of these books are studies in the Latin used in England in the
century following 1200, the period for which you claim expertise.
You claimed expertise at a minimum on the Latin term "cognatus." You
have never published an article on the Latin of 13th Century England,
nor even on the specific word on which you claimed mastery.
Even if you had published on the subject there was no peer review.
Even if there were peer review, there was no recognized validity.
If you are a scholar, as you have claimed to be you would recognize
that these are the norm for recognition as an expert: systematic study,
publication, peer review, and validation as the result of peer review.
On 10 Feb 2005 (and on other occasions) you claimed expertise as
follows:
"the Latin word "cognatus" in medieval England from
1200 forward (my period of expertise) meant kinsman only."
You had no right to do so.
When I claim expertise to this group in any field related to the
subject of this group, I shall not use a pen name.
CED
CED wrote:
Mr. Mr. Richardson:
Comments are interspersed:
Dear Mr. Richardson:
You should apolgize to the group for misrepresenation of you
qualification as an expert in the Latin used in 13th Century England.
You should not claim expertise in any field unless you first publish
a
systematic study and have it subjected to proper criticism.
CED
I've published two systematic medieval studies, Plantagenet Ancestry
and Magna Carta Ancestry. Both are massive. The first has received
favorable reviews. The second one just came out.
Neither of these books are studies in the Latin used in England in the
century following 1200, the period for which you claim expertise.
You claimed expertise at a minimum on the Latin term "cognatus." You
have never published an article on the Latin of 13th Century England,
nor even on the specific word on which you claimed mastery.
Even if you had published on the subject there was no peer review.
Even if there were peer review, there was no recognized validity.
If you are a scholar, as you have claimed to be you would recognize
that these are the norm for recognition as an expert: systematic study,
publication, peer review, and validation as the result of peer review.
Over the years, I've personally reviewed virtually every English
cartulary in print, charter by charter, and all ancient deeds in print,
page by page. I believe I'm more than familiar with the subject
matter. I don't call myself an expert as I'm still busy learning new
things.
On 10 Feb 2005 (and on other occasions) you claimed expertise as
follows:
"the Latin word "cognatus" in medieval England from
1200 forward (my period of expertise) meant kinsman only."
You had no right to do so.
DCR
P.S. By the way, the C in my initials stands for Charles. You know
the rest of my name. What do your initials stand for?
When I claim expertise to this group in any field related to the
subject of this group, I shall not use a pen name.
CED
-
John Brandon
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
When I claim expertise to this group in any field related to the subject of this group, I shall not use a pen name.
Oddly put. I guess you mean, "Once I become an expert, I'll start
using my name." Your scruples are convenient, aren't they?
-
CED
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
John Brandon wrote:
Brandon:
Normally I would no longer deign to reply to one of your posts. They
are inordinately crude and irrelevant to the subject of this group.
However, lest you and others misunderstood: my area of expertise is in
an area having nothing to do with the subject of this group (on which I
lurked for some time before posting). Were I to post as an expert, as
Mr. Richardson has done with respect to his so-called expertise in
Latin as it was used in 13th Century England, I would not use a pen
name.
Posting in my professional name would subject me to vicious attacks,
such as those you and Mr. Richardson (as well as crude, illiterate
"solitaire" )frequently conduct; and since posting constitutes legal
consent, I could suffer professionally without recourse. You yourself
might benefit from a consultation with an attorney on this matter.
CED
When I claim expertise to this group in any field related to the subject of this group, I shall not use a pen name.
Oddly put. I guess you mean, "Once I become an expert, I'll start
using my name." Your scruples are convenient, aren't they?
Brandon:
Normally I would no longer deign to reply to one of your posts. They
are inordinately crude and irrelevant to the subject of this group.
However, lest you and others misunderstood: my area of expertise is in
an area having nothing to do with the subject of this group (on which I
lurked for some time before posting). Were I to post as an expert, as
Mr. Richardson has done with respect to his so-called expertise in
Latin as it was used in 13th Century England, I would not use a pen
name.
Posting in my professional name would subject me to vicious attacks,
such as those you and Mr. Richardson (as well as crude, illiterate
"solitaire" )frequently conduct; and since posting constitutes legal
consent, I could suffer professionally without recourse. You yourself
might benefit from a consultation with an attorney on this matter.
CED
-
John Brandon
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Brandon:
Normally I would no longer deign to reply to one of your posts. They
are inordinately crude and irrelevant to the subject of this group.
However, lest you and others misunderstood: my area of expertise is in
an area having nothing to do with the subject of this group (on which I
lurked for some time before posting). Were I to post as an expert, as
Mr. Richardson has done with respect to his so-called expertise in
Latin as it was used in 13th Century England, I would not use a pen
name.
Posting in my professional name would subject me to vicious attacks,
such as those you and Mr. Richardson (as well as crude, illiterate
"solitaire" )frequently conduct; and since posting constitutes legal
consent, I could suffer professionally without recourse. You yourself
might benefit from a consultation with an attorney on this matter.
CED
-----------
So stiff, indignant, and pompous I might almost suspect "Peter" had
written it ...
-
CED
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Peter Stewart wrote:
Peter:
I differ with you on one point in posting in this group. You feel that
you must reply to all charges, regardless of their value, while I am
not inclined to reply unless it leads to a better understanding of the
issue at hand or unless it is a necessary correction of an error.
For example, that strange poster, Brandon, seems to enjoy the posting
back-and-forth, usually on subject matter having nothing to do with the
purpose of this group. His posts are not worthy of response.
However, on this day, he did respond to one of my posts, raising the
possibility of a misunderstanding of my use of a pen name. I responded
as carefully and truthfully as possible. He then came back with a
nonsense reply to which no response is necessary. He proved that even
the most reasonably sounding of his posts are not worthy of any
consideration by me or you or by any other serious poster.
We two do differ on this matter; but that is just a difference in
style, not substance.
CED
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121996364.659347.294530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter:
I differ with you on one point in posting in this group. You feel that
you must reply to all charges, regardless of their value, while I am
not inclined to reply unless it leads to a better understanding of the
issue at hand or unless it is a necessary correction of an error.
For example, that strange poster, Brandon, seems to enjoy the posting
back-and-forth, usually on subject matter having nothing to do with the
purpose of this group. His posts are not worthy of response.
However, on this day, he did respond to one of my posts, raising the
possibility of a misunderstanding of my use of a pen name. I responded
as carefully and truthfully as possible. He then came back with a
nonsense reply to which no response is necessary. He proved that even
the most reasonably sounding of his posts are not worthy of any
consideration by me or you or by any other serious poster.
We two do differ on this matter; but that is just a difference in
style, not substance.
CED
chomp
Unless you can make a showing of evidence to defeat these charges laid
against you, you should post no statements regarding Peter Stewart's
honesty; nor should you make any claims of expertise with respect to
the use of the Latin language at any time of any place.
Thank you, CED, for takng the trouble to set this out. Richardson is most
welcome to post his evidence for the charges he has made, and failure to do
this can harm no-one but himself.
I might add that I can't imagine any motive I could have to deceive the
newsgroup: I have no product to sell to readers, and never will have;
consequently there is nothing to be gained by impressing anyone with false
representations that would be exposed eventually.
Richardson on the other hand collects cash from SGM readers while he can
still bamboozle anyone into buying the books of a low-grade huckster. At the
same time he imagines that going into print (with the same publisher as
Roderick Stuart) will somehow ensure him a lasting reputation, having
observed that David Kelley's could withstand his published balderdash for so
long.
People like CED, who won't stand for lies in silence, are necessary to the
wellbeing of genealogy regardless of whether they pursue this study
professionally or as a hobby themselves.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
He proved that even the most reasonably sounding of his posts are not worthy of any
consideration by me or you or by any other serious poster.
I _do_ hope this means you won't bother me in the future.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
The truth about Mr. Richardson
Dear CED ~
I don't use a pen name, or a pseudonym. My real name is Douglas
Richardson. My area of expertise is England from 1200 to 1600. I've
published numerous articles and two massive books covering that
locality and time period. I have two degrees in History. I've
previously taught History at the college level. I'm listed in Who's
Who in Genealogy.
Now, CED, tell us what are your credentials?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
I don't use a pen name, or a pseudonym. My real name is Douglas
Richardson. My area of expertise is England from 1200 to 1600. I've
published numerous articles and two massive books covering that
locality and time period. I have two degrees in History. I've
previously taught History at the college level. I'm listed in Who's
Who in Genealogy.
Now, CED, tell us what are your credentials?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
However, lest you and others misunderstood: my area of expertise is in
an area having nothing to do with the subject of this group (on which I
lurked for some time before posting). Were I to post as an expert, as
Mr. Richardson has done with respect to his so-called expertise in
Latin as it was used in 13th Century England, I would not use a pen
name.
CED
-
CED
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
"Leo" wrote:
Dear Leo:
Almost certainly Mr. Richardson does not understand the meaning to the
term "systematic study." I post to you because you have a wide
acquaintance with members of the group and their various qualifictions
as medieval genealogists and experts on medieval documents, Mr.
Richardson's peers. Since M. Richardson has made claims in those
areas, those claims should be examined by his peers.
I have no expertise in these areas and would not attempt a description
of the making of an expert in either of those areas.
However, I do have an understanding of gaining such qualification both
in history and in languages. If Mr. Richardson should have a desire,
which I think he would since already he claims expertise, to become an
expert:
(1) SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE. He should conduct a survey of the
literature on the subject of the Latin used in England during the 13th
Century, including specialized dictionaries (inspite of his open
distaste for them). Since the subject matter is narrow, the literature
might not be so vast as to constitute a major problem. However, a
large part of the documentation for the Latin used in England at that
time should be found in France. Therefore, the Latin used by persons
sometimes resident in France but generally in England consitutes a part
of the area to be studied. The same can be said of the Crusaders,
Norman Italy, and the papal archives. Has Mr. Richardson conducted a
survey of the literature? He offers no evidence.
(2) SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE. Once the literature has been gathered and
evaluated, that which deals with specific words (in this instance
"cognatus" and related Latin words, such as cognates and derivatives
and their accidents, i.e. their declined and conjugated forms) can be
sorted out and a determination is to made as to whether the meaning of
the word and the related words is in dispute in the literature. If so,
has there been a dinfinitive resolution. If not, all of the documents
in which the word is used, should be gathered and collated as to time,
geography, and variation in use. Those instances most likely to have
relevance should be set apart for analysis. Has Mr. Richardson
examined all the documents and set apart all examples of the use of the
word "cognatus" (and its cognates) for analysis? He offers no
evidence.
(3) ANAYSIS. Once each instance of the use of the word "cognatus" (as
well as its most important cognates) has been exmained to determine
patterns and variations of meaning and usage, then the stage has been
set for the completion of the process. Has Mr. Richardson even begun
the preliminary work for a systematic study of the word "cognatus" as
it was used in Thirteenth Century England (and presumably by English
clerics and crusaders abroad)? He offers no evidence.
--
Mr. Richardson has not done any of the preliminary work for a
systematic study of the word "cognatus." It appears that Mr.
Richardson does not even have a clue as to how to start a scholarly
work, as would any first year post graduate candidate, or for that
matter, any person who reads scholarly publications.
A review of the archives reveals that he has little if any knowledge,
let alone undestanding, of Latin. If he wants to claim expertise, as
he did in his post of 10 Feb 2005, let him begin properly or remain
silent on the subject.
A hint about Mr. Richardson: those who care might want to examine the
archives. He is are widely spread in more than one group and is easily
shown to be weak on scholarship.
CED
Dear Leo:
Almost certainly Mr. Richardson does not understand the meaning to the
term "systematic study." I post to you because you have a wide
acquaintance with members of the group and their various qualifictions
as medieval genealogists and experts on medieval documents, Mr.
Richardson's peers. Since M. Richardson has made claims in those
areas, those claims should be examined by his peers.
I have no expertise in these areas and would not attempt a description
of the making of an expert in either of those areas.
However, I do have an understanding of gaining such qualification both
in history and in languages. If Mr. Richardson should have a desire,
which I think he would since already he claims expertise, to become an
expert:
(1) SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE. He should conduct a survey of the
literature on the subject of the Latin used in England during the 13th
Century, including specialized dictionaries (inspite of his open
distaste for them). Since the subject matter is narrow, the literature
might not be so vast as to constitute a major problem. However, a
large part of the documentation for the Latin used in England at that
time should be found in France. Therefore, the Latin used by persons
sometimes resident in France but generally in England consitutes a part
of the area to be studied. The same can be said of the Crusaders,
Norman Italy, and the papal archives. Has Mr. Richardson conducted a
survey of the literature? He offers no evidence.
(2) SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE. Once the literature has been gathered and
evaluated, that which deals with specific words (in this instance
"cognatus" and related Latin words, such as cognates and derivatives
and their accidents, i.e. their declined and conjugated forms) can be
sorted out and a determination is to made as to whether the meaning of
the word and the related words is in dispute in the literature. If so,
has there been a dinfinitive resolution. If not, all of the documents
in which the word is used, should be gathered and collated as to time,
geography, and variation in use. Those instances most likely to have
relevance should be set apart for analysis. Has Mr. Richardson
examined all the documents and set apart all examples of the use of the
word "cognatus" (and its cognates) for analysis? He offers no
evidence.
(3) ANAYSIS. Once each instance of the use of the word "cognatus" (as
well as its most important cognates) has been exmained to determine
patterns and variations of meaning and usage, then the stage has been
set for the completion of the process. Has Mr. Richardson even begun
the preliminary work for a systematic study of the word "cognatus" as
it was used in Thirteenth Century England (and presumably by English
clerics and crusaders abroad)? He offers no evidence.
--
Mr. Richardson has not done any of the preliminary work for a
systematic study of the word "cognatus." It appears that Mr.
Richardson does not even have a clue as to how to start a scholarly
work, as would any first year post graduate candidate, or for that
matter, any person who reads scholarly publications.
A review of the archives reveals that he has little if any knowledge,
let alone undestanding, of Latin. If he wants to claim expertise, as
he did in his post of 10 Feb 2005, let him begin properly or remain
silent on the subject.
A hint about Mr. Richardson: those who care might want to examine the
archives. He is are widely spread in more than one group and is easily
shown to be weak on scholarship.
CED
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical methodology is
being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very important
as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust. And some people
just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling or unable to give.
And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands respect but is unable
or unwilling to give it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
CED wrote:
Dear Mr. Richardson:
I wish to remind you of my promise to keep you honest with respect to
language, logic, and argumentation.
Note the following excerpt of my message of 18 July 2005:
"Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
Look, if you idiots want to bitch at each other about manners, take it
somewhere else -- you're a waste of bandwidth in the newsgroup.
-
CED
Re: The truth about Mr. Richardson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Mr. Richardson:
Your original claim to expertise was narrow: the Latin used in England
in the 13th Century. That claim has not been supported by any
evidence.
Now you claim expertise in all of England for the period of 1200 to
1600. Very few, if anybody, would make such a claim.
Now you must, if you are serious, support that claim.
Do you actually think that publishing two books in which lines of
ancestry are laid out with veiled lumps of citaions (not specific as to
fact allegation of facts) qualifies you to be an expert. Your
publisher puts out lots of books which, I assume, not even you would
consider good genealogy. That publisher is little better than a vanity
press.
As you may now realize, I am qualified to be a critic as to language,
logic, and technique of argumentation, the basis for many an honorable
profession.
CED
According to the archives, you have a B.A. with a major in history; and
a masters in history. You have taught in college.
Now tell us:
(1) what courses gave you the necessary hour to constitute a major?
Were any of them in medieval history?
(2) what was your area of emphasis for your masters? Was it medieval
history? (It was Wisconsin wasn't?)
(3) what courses did you teach in college? Werany in medieval history?
What college was it?
The answers to these questions could be quite revealing.
Finally, where did you study Latin and for how many years?
Being listed in Who's Who in Genealogy is no evidence of expertise in
anything.
As you may now realize, I am qualified to be a critic as to language,
logic, and technique of argumentation, the basis for many an honorable
profession. I will let my words and my reasoning be my qualifications.
CED
Dear CED ~
Mr. Richardson:
Your original claim to expertise was narrow: the Latin used in England
in the 13th Century. That claim has not been supported by any
evidence.
Now you claim expertise in all of England for the period of 1200 to
1600. Very few, if anybody, would make such a claim.
Now you must, if you are serious, support that claim.
Do you actually think that publishing two books in which lines of
ancestry are laid out with veiled lumps of citaions (not specific as to
fact allegation of facts) qualifies you to be an expert. Your
publisher puts out lots of books which, I assume, not even you would
consider good genealogy. That publisher is little better than a vanity
press.
As you may now realize, I am qualified to be a critic as to language,
logic, and technique of argumentation, the basis for many an honorable
profession.
CED
I don't use a pen name, or a pseudonym. My real name is Douglas
Richardson. My area of expertise is England from 1200 to 1600. I've
published numerous articles and two massive books covering that
locality and time period. I have two degrees in History. I've
previously taught History at the college level.
According to the archives, you have a B.A. with a major in history; and
a masters in history. You have taught in college.
Now tell us:
(1) what courses gave you the necessary hour to constitute a major?
Were any of them in medieval history?
(2) what was your area of emphasis for your masters? Was it medieval
history? (It was Wisconsin wasn't?)
(3) what courses did you teach in college? Werany in medieval history?
What college was it?
The answers to these questions could be quite revealing.
Finally, where did you study Latin and for how many years?
I'm listed in Who's
Who in Genealogy.
Being listed in Who's Who in Genealogy is no evidence of expertise in
anything.
Now, CED, tell us what are your credentials?
As you may now realize, I am qualified to be a critic as to language,
logic, and technique of argumentation, the basis for many an honorable
profession. I will let my words and my reasoning be my qualifications.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
However, lest you and others misunderstood: my area of expertise is in
an area having nothing to do with the subject of this group (on which I
lurked for some time before posting). Were I to post as an expert, as
Mr. Richardson has done with respect to his so-called expertise in
Latin as it was used in 13th Century England, I would not use a pen
name.
CED
-
John Brandon
Re: The truth about Mr. Richardson
That publisher is little better than a vanity press.
This is a ridiculously untrue statement. Genealogical Publishing is a
well-respected company.
**Please remember not to respond to me as you find me beneath
contempt.**
-
John Brandon
Re: The truth about Mr. Richardson
Your comments are so wrong and silly that you begin to put P.M.S. in a
good light (the person, if not the condition)!
good light (the person, if not the condition)!
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: The truth about Mr. Richardson
John Brandon wrote:
Are they? I certainly don't respect their continued printing of Royalty
For Cretins.
Genealogical Publishing has produced some quality volumes. They also
continue to produce volumes of poor quality (and some of their marketing
with regard to the latter is rather deceptive). Their interest is not
in publishing quality works of genealogical scholarship, but rather (as
is to be expected of any specialized commercial publishing company) in
publishing genealogy works that will sell copies, regardless of relative
quality. Certainly, a scholar who aspires to quality would not turn to
GPC as first publisher of choice, but given the difficulties of
scholarly publishing, may turn to them as a publisher of opportunity.
taf
Genealogical Publishing is a well-respected company.
Are they? I certainly don't respect their continued printing of Royalty
For Cretins.
Genealogical Publishing has produced some quality volumes. They also
continue to produce volumes of poor quality (and some of their marketing
with regard to the latter is rather deceptive). Their interest is not
in publishing quality works of genealogical scholarship, but rather (as
is to be expected of any specialized commercial publishing company) in
publishing genealogy works that will sell copies, regardless of relative
quality. Certainly, a scholar who aspires to quality would not turn to
GPC as first publisher of choice, but given the difficulties of
scholarly publishing, may turn to them as a publisher of opportunity.
taf
-
John Brandon
Re: The truth about Mr. Richardson
Yes, I'd say most of their stuff is at least worth a look. They've
published quite a lot of valuable source material, and reprinted many
classics (Savage's _Genealogical Dictionary_, for instance).
They will publish compiled family genealogies that are sometimes not
the best, I suppose.
Naturally, they have to make money to continue in business.
published quite a lot of valuable source material, and reprinted many
classics (Savage's _Genealogical Dictionary_, for instance).
They will publish compiled family genealogies that are sometimes not
the best, I suppose.
Naturally, they have to make money to continue in business.
-
John Brandon
Re: The truth about Mr. Richardson
They published Gary's _RD 600_, to which Nat's review makes sly,
invidious comparisons.
invidious comparisons.
-
Leo
OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Solitaire is showing his true colours. See below. At times and with some
people matters _can_ be discussed and resolved in private, but with some
people they can't. As Solitaire requests, the matter is back on the
newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net>
To: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
people matters _can_ be discussed and resolved in private, but with some
people they can't. As Solitaire requests, the matter is back on the
newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net>
To: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Leo wrote:
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical methodology
is being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust. And
some people just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling or
unable to give. And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands
respect but is unable or unwilling to give it.
I posted TO THE NEWSGROUP.
You want to discuss anything, do it IN THE FUCKING NEWSGROUP.
WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE TWO PEOPLE, IT SHOULD
BE IN EMAIL.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1122052605.844628.266930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Brandon has none, of either.
Apart from different thoughts on our part, he is also quite incapable of
distinguishing between very different styles of expression, since he
suggests that you and I might be the same writer.
He could start his remedial education in this area by going over an
astoundingly crude example of phoney prose that was composed by Richardson
yesterday, trying to pass himself off as "Uriah N. Owen" with limp and
misapplied pseudo-British terms such as "old git" and "bumf" (sic).
Peter Stewart
news:1122052605.844628.266930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
We two do differ on this matter; but that is just a difference in
style, not substance.
Brandon has none, of either.
Apart from different thoughts on our part, he is also quite incapable of
distinguishing between very different styles of expression, since he
suggests that you and I might be the same writer.
He could start his remedial education in this area by going over an
astoundingly crude example of phoney prose that was composed by Richardson
yesterday, trying to pass himself off as "Uriah N. Owen" with limp and
misapplied pseudo-British terms such as "old git" and "bumf" (sic).
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:002001c58f0f$ea08e4e0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Excellently well said, Leo. I might prefer a corner-stone to be more solid
than flexible, but even the greatest structures need to move a bit.
Richardson has no such qualities, although he could perhaps have attained to
them by hard, sensible and modest work. Instead his output has become
merely - in the superb phrase of Hans Vogels - so much "fried air".
Peter Stewart
news:002001c58f0f$ea08e4e0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
As this is addressed to me personally allow me to give a different kind of
opinion. If you go to my website you see that I believe genealogists can
be divided into two groups: Hunters and Gatherers. Hunters persue primary
sources and gatherers use the finds of the hunters.
I am very much a gatherer and have to pretensions to be a hunter, I
feel/fear that Douglas Richardson is a gatherer who wants to be seen as a
hunter. Also I have said it several times that Douglas Richardson could
have been such a corner stone in genealogy, if only he could behave
differently. You catch bears with honey, not with a stick. He could have
created such goodwill that everyone would be willing to support and assist
him and genealogy would benefit enormously. But to be such a corner stone
you have to be flexible not out on revenge every time someone _may_ have
said something disagreeable. But if something disagreeable has been
said----address it, not go into counter attack.
I think it is a tragedy that could have been such a triumph. But there is
only one big looser.
Excellently well said, Leo. I might prefer a corner-stone to be more solid
than flexible, but even the greatest structures need to move a bit.
Richardson has no such qualities, although he could perhaps have attained to
them by hard, sensible and modest work. Instead his output has become
merely - in the superb phrase of Hans Vogels - so much "fried air".
Peter Stewart
-
Leo
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
As this is addressed to me personally allow me to give a different kind of
opinion. If you go to my website you see that I believe genealogists can be
divided into two groups: Hunters and Gatherers. Hunters persue primary
sources and gatherers use the finds of the hunters.
I am very much a gatherer and have to pretensions to be a hunter, I
feel/fear that Douglas Richardson is a gatherer who wants to be seen as a
hunter. Also I have said it several times that Douglas Richardson could have
been such a corner stone in genealogy, if only he could behave differently.
You catch bears with honey, not with a stick. He could have created such
goodwill that everyone would be willing to support and assist him and
genealogy would benefit enormously. But to be such a corner stone you have
to be flexible not out on revenge every time someone _may_ have said
something disagreeable. But if something disagreeable has been
said----address it, not go into counter attack.
I think it is a tragedy that could have been such a triumph. But there is
only one big looser.
----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
opinion. If you go to my website you see that I believe genealogists can be
divided into two groups: Hunters and Gatherers. Hunters persue primary
sources and gatherers use the finds of the hunters.
I am very much a gatherer and have to pretensions to be a hunter, I
feel/fear that Douglas Richardson is a gatherer who wants to be seen as a
hunter. Also I have said it several times that Douglas Richardson could have
been such a corner stone in genealogy, if only he could behave differently.
You catch bears with honey, not with a stick. He could have created such
goodwill that everyone would be willing to support and assist him and
genealogy would benefit enormously. But to be such a corner stone you have
to be flexible not out on revenge every time someone _may_ have said
something disagreeable. But if something disagreeable has been
said----address it, not go into counter attack.
I think it is a tragedy that could have been such a triumph. But there is
only one big looser.
----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
"Leo" wrote:
Dear Leo:
Almost certainly Mr. Richardson does not understand the meaning to the
term "systematic study." I post to you because you have a wide
acquaintance with members of the group and their various qualifictions
as medieval genealogists and experts on medieval documents, Mr.
Richardson's peers. Since M. Richardson has made claims in those
areas, those claims should be examined by his peers.
I have no expertise in these areas and would not attempt a description
of the making of an expert in either of those areas.
However, I do have an understanding of gaining such qualification both
in history and in languages. If Mr. Richardson should have a desire,
which I think he would since already he claims expertise, to become an
expert:
(1) SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE. He should conduct a survey of the
literature on the subject of the Latin used in England during the 13th
Century, including specialized dictionaries (inspite of his open
distaste for them). Since the subject matter is narrow, the literature
might not be so vast as to constitute a major problem. However, a
large part of the documentation for the Latin used in England at that
time should be found in France. Therefore, the Latin used by persons
sometimes resident in France but generally in England consitutes a part
of the area to be studied. The same can be said of the Crusaders,
Norman Italy, and the papal archives. Has Mr. Richardson conducted a
survey of the literature? He offers no evidence.
(2) SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE. Once the literature has been gathered and
evaluated, that which deals with specific words (in this instance
"cognatus" and related Latin words, such as cognates and derivatives
and their accidents, i.e. their declined and conjugated forms) can be
sorted out and a determination is to made as to whether the meaning of
the word and the related words is in dispute in the literature. If so,
has there been a dinfinitive resolution. If not, all of the documents
in which the word is used, should be gathered and collated as to time,
geography, and variation in use. Those instances most likely to have
relevance should be set apart for analysis. Has Mr. Richardson
examined all the documents and set apart all examples of the use of the
word "cognatus" (and its cognates) for analysis? He offers no
evidence.
(3) ANAYSIS. Once each instance of the use of the word "cognatus" (as
well as its most important cognates) has been exmained to determine
patterns and variations of meaning and usage, then the stage has been
set for the completion of the process. Has Mr. Richardson even begun
the preliminary work for a systematic study of the word "cognatus" as
it was used in Thirteenth Century England (and presumably by English
clerics and crusaders abroad)? He offers no evidence.
--
Mr. Richardson has not done any of the preliminary work for a
systematic study of the word "cognatus." It appears that Mr.
Richardson does not even have a clue as to how to start a scholarly
work, as would any first year post graduate candidate, or for that
matter, any person who reads scholarly publications.
A review of the archives reveals that he has little if any knowledge,
let alone undestanding, of Latin. If he wants to claim expertise, as
he did in his post of 10 Feb 2005, let him begin properly or remain
silent on the subject.
A hint about Mr. Richardson: those who care might want to examine the
archives. He is are widely spread in more than one group and is easily
shown to be weak on scholarship.
CED
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical methodology
is
being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important
as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust. And some
people
just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling or unable to
give.
And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands respect but is
unable
or unwilling to give it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
CED wrote:
Dear Mr. Richardson:
I wish to remind you of my promise to keep you honest with respect to
language, logic, and argumentation.
Note the following excerpt of my message of 18 July 2005:
"Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to
avoid
Look, if you idiots want to bitch at each other about manners, take it
somewhere else -- you're a waste of bandwidth in the newsgroup.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Nat Taylor's Style
That's just Nat's Style -- Sly Innuendo.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122064323.388783.205780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| They published Gary's _RD 600_, to which Nat's review makes sly,
| invidious comparisons.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122064323.388783.205780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| They published Gary's _RD 600_, to which Nat's review makes sly,
| invidious comparisons.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
You need to start before you can finish, Hines - where is your defense of
Richardson? Another gadfly like Brandon, cutting out all the substance you
are vainly trying to dismiss, is worse than useless to the case.
Put this if you can, by all means....but we have all seen now that you
can't. The record simply will not be turned upside down by claims or
implications that something is there which everyone knows perfectly well is
NOT.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aZfEe.102$qq6.671@eagle.america.net...
Richardson? Another gadfly like Brandon, cutting out all the substance you
are vainly trying to dismiss, is worse than useless to the case.
Put this if you can, by all means....but we have all seen now that you
can't. The record simply will not be turned upside down by claims or
implications that something is there which everyone knows perfectly well is
NOT.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aZfEe.102$qq6.671@eagle.america.net...
These two are really enoying beating up on Douglas Richardson.
The result is just to make them look the Bigger Fools.
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
These two are really enoying beating up on Douglas Richardson.
The result is just to make them look the Bigger Fools.
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
The result is just to make them look the Bigger Fools.
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:002001c58f0f$ea08e4e0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
so just fillern OFF
and answer privately
I don't know and don't care who you are
Hugh W
news:002001c58f0f$ea08e4e0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
As this is addressed to me personally
so just fillern OFF
and answer privately
I don't know and don't care who you are
Hugh W
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:y1gEe.59089$oJ.10859@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
you also better fillern OFF
are you senile or stupid or both?
Hugh W
news:y1gEe.59089$oJ.10859@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
You need to start before you can finish, Hines - where is your defense of
Richardson?
you also better fillern OFF
are you senile or stupid or both?
Hugh W
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e1ed74$0$18643$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
<dysphemism & nonsense snipped>
My apologies to the newsroup for giving this lunatic Watkins an occasion to
behave so offensively.
Peter Stewart
news:42e1ed74$0$18643$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
<dysphemism & nonsense snipped>
Hugh W
My apologies to the newsroup for giving this lunatic Watkins an occasion to
behave so offensively.
Peter Stewart
-
Hans Vogels
Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Looks like this Hugh Watkins is an alter ego of Solitaire. He has not
learned mutch in the moments he spent on the newsgroup.
Hans Vogels
"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<42e1ed1a$0$18649$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>...
learned mutch in the moments he spent on the newsgroup.
Hans Vogels
"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<42e1ed1a$0$18649$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>...
""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:002001c58f0f$ea08e4e0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
As this is addressed to me personally
so just fillern OFF
and answer privately
I don't know and don't care who you are
Hugh W
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfoun
Dear Leo ~
I'm curious. Was this a private e-mail sent to you from Solitaire, or
a public post that I missed seeing?
Private is private, public is public. Which is it?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
I'm curious. Was this a private e-mail sent to you from Solitaire, or
a public post that I missed seeing?
Private is private, public is public. Which is it?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
Solitaire is showing his true colours. See below. At times and with some
people matters _can_ be discussed and resolved in private, but with some
people they can't. As Solitaire requests, the matter is back on the
newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net
To: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Leo wrote:
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical methodology
is being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust. And
some people just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling or
unable to give. And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands
respect but is unable or unwilling to give it.
I posted TO THE NEWSGROUP.
You want to discuss anything, do it IN THE FUCKING NEWSGROUP.
WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE TWO PEOPLE, IT SHOULD
BE IN EMAIL.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
Crawl back into the closet, Peter -- and play with yourself and your
hand grenades.
Hopefully, one will eventually go off in your lap.
You are having zip point zero luck with them in trying to injure Douglas
Richardson.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:nZmEe.59591$oJ.1863@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:42e1ed74$0$18643$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
|
| <dysphemism & nonsense snipped>
|
| > Hugh W
|
| My apologies to the newsroup [sic] for giving this lunatic
| Watkins an occasion to behave so offensively.
|
| Peter Stewart
hand grenades.
Hopefully, one will eventually go off in your lap.
You are having zip point zero luck with them in trying to injure Douglas
Richardson.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:nZmEe.59591$oJ.1863@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:42e1ed74$0$18643$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
|
| <dysphemism & nonsense snipped>
|
| > Hugh W
|
| My apologies to the newsroup [sic] for giving this lunatic
| Watkins an occasion to behave so offensively.
|
| Peter Stewart
-
Leo
Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfoun
I am not sure anymore, but he wanted it in the newsgroup and that is where I
responded.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
responded.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
Dear Leo ~
I'm curious. Was this a private e-mail sent to you from Solitaire, or
a public post that I missed seeing?
Private is private, public is public. Which is it?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
Solitaire is showing his true colours. See below. At times and with some
people matters _can_ be discussed and resolved in private, but with some
people they can't. As Solitaire requests, the matter is back on the
newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net
To: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Leo wrote:
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical
methodology
is being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust.
And
some people just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling
or
unable to give. And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands
respect but is unable or unwilling to give it.
I posted TO THE NEWSGROUP.
You want to discuss anything, do it IN THE FUCKING NEWSGROUP.
WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE TWO PEOPLE, IT
SHOULD
BE IN EMAIL.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfoun
Dear Leo ~
You're dodging the question. Did you post a private e-mail from
Solitaire on the newsgroup? Yes or no?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
You're dodging the question. Did you post a private e-mail from
Solitaire on the newsgroup? Yes or no?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
I am not sure anymore, but he wanted it in the newsgroup and that is where I
responded.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
Dear Leo ~
I'm curious. Was this a private e-mail sent to you from Solitaire, or
a public post that I missed seeing?
Private is private, public is public. Which is it?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
Solitaire is showing his true colours. See below. At times and with some
people matters _can_ be discussed and resolved in private, but with some
people they can't. As Solitaire requests, the matter is back on the
newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net
To: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Leo wrote:
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical
methodology
is being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust.
And
some people just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling
or
unable to give. And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands
respect but is unable or unwilling to give it.
I posted TO THE NEWSGROUP.
You want to discuss anything, do it IN THE FUCKING NEWSGROUP.
WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE TWO PEOPLE, IT
SHOULD
BE IN EMAIL.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.
Yes or no? Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not? If
you did, it's a very inappropriate think to do.
Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Leo" wrote:
you did, it's a very inappropriate think to do.
Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Leo" wrote:
"Just when I thought it was safe to get back into the (genealogical)
waters".
Douglas,
I am so glad to see that you find it important to get answers. I am still
waiting (how many times asked for?) for substance to your claim that I was
fighting with everyone while you were away. You can't have rules applying to
others but not to you. It is rather "prissy" (to use one of your terms) to
expect that.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
Dear Leo ~
You're dodging the question. Did you post a private e-mail from
Solitaire on the newsgroup? Yes or no?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
I am not sure anymore, but he wanted it in the newsgroup and that is
where I
responded.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
Dear Leo ~
I'm curious. Was this a private e-mail sent to you from Solitaire, or
a public post that I missed seeing?
Private is private, public is public. Which is it?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
Solitaire is showing his true colours. See below. At times and with
some
people matters _can_ be discussed and resolved in private, but with
some
people they can't. As Solitaire requests, the matter is back on the
newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net
To: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Leo wrote:
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical
methodology
is being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important as only with that knowledge people can decide who to
trust.
And
some people just cannot ask from others they themselves are
unwilling
or
unable to give. And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he
demands
respect but is unable or unwilling to give it.
I posted TO THE NEWSGROUP.
You want to discuss anything, do it IN THE FUCKING NEWSGROUP.
WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE TWO PEOPLE, IT
SHOULD
BE IN EMAIL.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Public is Public. Private is Private. It's tjhat simple.
Dear Leo ~
Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not? Yes or no?
Claiming a faulty memory doesn't cut it.
If you did, it's a very inappropriate thing to do.
Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Leo" wrote:
< "Just when I thought it was safe to get back into the (genealogical)
< waters".
<
< Douglas,
< I am so glad to see that you find it important to get answers. I am
still
< waiting (how many times asked for?) for substance to your claim that
I was
< fighting with everyone while you were away. You can't have rules
applying to
< others but not to you. It is rather "prissy" (to use one of your
terms) to
< expect that.
<
Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not? Yes or no?
Claiming a faulty memory doesn't cut it.
If you did, it's a very inappropriate thing to do.
Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Leo" wrote:
< "Just when I thought it was safe to get back into the (genealogical)
< waters".
<
< Douglas,
< I am so glad to see that you find it important to get answers. I am
still
< waiting (how many times asked for?) for substance to your claim that
I was
< fighting with everyone while you were away. You can't have rules
applying to
< others but not to you. It is rather "prissy" (to use one of your
terms) to
< expect that.
<
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
Dear Leo ~
You're dodging the question. Did you post a private e-mail from
Solitaire on the newsgroup? Yes or no?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
I am not sure anymore, but he wanted it in the newsgroup and that is
where I
responded.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
Dear Leo ~
I'm curious. Was this a private e-mail sent to you from Solitaire, or
a public post that I missed seeing?
Private is private, public is public. Which is it?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
Solitaire is showing his true colours. See below. At times and with
some
people matters _can_ be discussed and resolved in private, but with
some
people they can't. As Solitaire requests, the matter is back on the
newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net
To: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Leo wrote:
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical
methodology
is being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important as only with that knowledge people can decide who to
trust.
And
some people just cannot ask from others they themselves are
unwilling
or
unable to give. And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he
demands
respect but is unable or unwilling to give it.
I posted TO THE NEWSGROUP.
You want to discuss anything, do it IN THE FUCKING NEWSGROUP.
WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE TWO PEOPLE, IT
SHOULD
BE IN EMAIL.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Private Is Private. Public Is Public. It's That Simple.
Dear Spencer ~
That Leo claims he doesn't remember what he did yesterday is very
concerning. Perhaps Leo is suffering from an early case of senility.
Either that, or Leo is lying to the whole newsgroup. If the latter is
the case, his credility is zero.
This is fits the same pattern with Peter Stewart. First he tells us
what he wants us to think, then he slowly dribbles out the truth. All
in all, both men have turned in very shabby performances lately.
The truth is the truth is the truth. It's that simple.
DR
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
< Yep...
<
< Leo is definitely dodging the question.
<
< Caught by the short hairs...
<
< DSH
<
< <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
< news:1122157853.438661.230380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<
< | Yes or no? Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not?
If
< | you did, it's a very inappropriate thing to do.
< |
< | Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
< |
< | Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
That Leo claims he doesn't remember what he did yesterday is very
concerning. Perhaps Leo is suffering from an early case of senility.
Either that, or Leo is lying to the whole newsgroup. If the latter is
the case, his credility is zero.
This is fits the same pattern with Peter Stewart. First he tells us
what he wants us to think, then he slowly dribbles out the truth. All
in all, both men have turned in very shabby performances lately.
The truth is the truth is the truth. It's that simple.
DR
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
< Yep...
<
< Leo is definitely dodging the question.
<
< Caught by the short hairs...
<
< DSH
<
< <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
< news:1122157853.438661.230380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<
< | Yes or no? Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not?
If
< | you did, it's a very inappropriate thing to do.
< |
< | Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
< |
< | Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
CED
Re: Private Is Private. Public Is Public. It's That Simple.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
You will notice that Mr. Richardson is trying to begin another dispute.
Only he and the unbalanced DSH seem to care about the nature of Leo's
post. Solitaire has said nothing.
It seems that Mr. Richardson thrives on these disputes.
CED
Dear Spencer ~
To the Newsgroup:
You will notice that Mr. Richardson is trying to begin another dispute.
Only he and the unbalanced DSH seem to care about the nature of Leo's
post. Solitaire has said nothing.
It seems that Mr. Richardson thrives on these disputes.
CED
That Leo claims he doesn't remember what he did yesterday is very
concerning. Perhaps Leo is suffering from an early case of senility.
Either that, or Leo is lying to the whole newsgroup. If the latter is
the case, his credility is zero.
This is fits the same pattern with Peter Stewart. First he tells us
what he wants us to think, then he slowly dribbles out the truth. All
in all, both men have turned in very shabby performances lately.
The truth is the truth is the truth. It's that simple.
DR
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Yep...
Leo is definitely dodging the question.
Caught by the short hairs...
DSH
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122157853.438661.230380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Yes or no? Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not?
If
| you did, it's a very inappropriate thing to do.
|
| Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Leo
OT Richardson's goose but not the gander? Re: OT Manners a
"Just when I thought it was safe to get back into the (genealogical)
waters".
Douglas,
I am so glad to see that you find it important to get answers. I am still
waiting (how many times asked for?) for substance to your claim that I was
fighting with everyone while you were away. You can't have rules applying to
others but not to you. It is rather "prissy" (to use one of your terms) to
expect that.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
waters".
Douglas,
I am so glad to see that you find it important to get answers. I am still
waiting (how many times asked for?) for substance to your claim that I was
fighting with everyone while you were away. You can't have rules applying to
others but not to you. It is rather "prissy" (to use one of your terms) to
expect that.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
Dear Leo ~
You're dodging the question. Did you post a private e-mail from
Solitaire on the newsgroup? Yes or no?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
I am not sure anymore, but he wanted it in the newsgroup and that is
where I
responded.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: OT Manners and Relations was Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded
Charges
Dear Leo ~
I'm curious. Was this a private e-mail sent to you from Solitaire, or
a public post that I missed seeing?
Private is private, public is public. Which is it?
DR
"Leo" wrote:
Solitaire is showing his true colours. See below. At times and with
some
people matters _can_ be discussed and resolved in private, but with
some
people they can't. As Solitaire requests, the matter is back on the
newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "solitaire" <soli13taire@verizon.net
To: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Leo wrote:
Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical
methodology
is being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very
important as only with that knowledge people can decide who to
trust.
And
some people just cannot ask from others they themselves are
unwilling
or
unable to give. And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he
demands
respect but is unable or unwilling to give it.
I posted TO THE NEWSGROUP.
You want to discuss anything, do it IN THE FUCKING NEWSGROUP.
WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE TWO PEOPLE, IT
SHOULD
BE IN EMAIL.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Private Is Private. Public Is Public. It's That Simple
Yep...
Leo is definitely dodging the question.
Caught by the short hairs...
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122157853.438661.230380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Yes or no? Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not? If
| you did, it's a very inappropriate think to do.
|
| Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Leo is definitely dodging the question.
Caught by the short hairs...
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122157853.438661.230380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Yes or no? Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not? If
| you did, it's a very inappropriate think to do.
|
| Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A%uEe.137$qq6.959@eagle.america.net...
Logic is far from being your forte, isn't it Hines? First you say I need to
come out of the (or, rather, your....) "closet", now you imagine I should
get back into it.
If you call them grenades, you acknowledge an explosive potential. Why is
that, Hines? Has something blown up in your face - either of them, that is?
Luck is scarcely required. Richardson has hurt himself with his transparent
"Uriah N. Owen" imposture more than anything said about this. As for the
rest, if nothing I say injures him, why exactly is it that you, Brandon and
the man himself invariably neglect to lob the "grenades" back, much less
failing to detonate any of your own?
Another damp quib from Hines, trying to sound military & - he wishes -
manly....
Peter Stewart
news:A%uEe.137$qq6.959@eagle.america.net...
Crawl back into the closet, Peter -- and play with yourself and your
hand grenades.
Logic is far from being your forte, isn't it Hines? First you say I need to
come out of the (or, rather, your....) "closet", now you imagine I should
get back into it.
Hopefully, one will eventually go off in your lap.
If you call them grenades, you acknowledge an explosive potential. Why is
that, Hines? Has something blown up in your face - either of them, that is?
You are having zip point zero luck with them in trying to injure Douglas
Richardson.
Luck is scarcely required. Richardson has hurt himself with his transparent
"Uriah N. Owen" imposture more than anything said about this. As for the
rest, if nothing I say injures him, why exactly is it that you, Brandon and
the man himself invariably neglect to lob the "grenades" back, much less
failing to detonate any of your own?
Another damp quib from Hines, trying to sound military & - he wishes -
manly....
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
OT Double Standard Douglas still at it Re: Private Is Priva
I am not sure and cannot remember are two different things. When are you
going to take that class in _comprehension English_ followed by _Medieval
Latin_ and Medieval French_, perhaps then you could become a hunter, you are
still a gatherer as far as I am concerned.
I could not be bothered making sure, even though the answer was on the
e-mail I was replyhing to. You could not be bothered reading it nor let it
sink in. Pathetic. Or to use Hines's variety HILARIOUS
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Private Is Private. Public Is Public. It's That Simple.
going to take that class in _comprehension English_ followed by _Medieval
Latin_ and Medieval French_, perhaps then you could become a hunter, you are
still a gatherer as far as I am concerned.
I could not be bothered making sure, even though the answer was on the
e-mail I was replyhing to. You could not be bothered reading it nor let it
sink in. Pathetic. Or to use Hines's variety HILARIOUS
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Private Is Private. Public Is Public. It's That Simple.
Dear Spencer ~
That Leo claims he doesn't remember what he did yesterday is very
concerning. Perhaps Leo is suffering from an early case of senility.
Either that, or Leo is lying to the whole newsgroup. If the latter is
the case, his credility is zero.
This is fits the same pattern with Peter Stewart. First he tells us
what he wants us to think, then he slowly dribbles out the truth. All
in all, both men have turned in very shabby performances lately.
The truth is the truth is the truth. It's that simple.
DR
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Yep...
Leo is definitely dodging the question.
Caught by the short hairs...
DSH
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122157853.438661.230380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Yes or no? Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not?
If
| you did, it's a very inappropriate thing to do.
|
| Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
Dear Peter ~
Uriah N. Owen sent me a message yesterday that he plans to post another
message on the newsgroup in a few days. He indicated that he has some
more questions for you.
Good luck, Peter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Uriah N. Owen sent me a message yesterday that he plans to post another
message on the newsgroup in a few days. He indicated that he has some
more questions for you.
Good luck, Peter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A%uEe.137$qq6.959@eagle.america.net...
Crawl back into the closet, Peter -- and play with yourself and your
hand grenades.
Logic is far from being your forte, isn't it Hines? First you say I need to
come out of the (or, rather, your....) "closet", now you imagine I should
get back into it.
Hopefully, one will eventually go off in your lap.
If you call them grenades, you acknowledge an explosive potential. Why is
that, Hines? Has something blown up in your face - either of them, that is?
You are having zip point zero luck with them in trying to injure Douglas
Richardson.
Luck is scarcely required. Richardson has hurt himself with his transparent
"Uriah N. Owen" imposture more than anything said about this. As for the
rest, if nothing I say injures him, why exactly is it that you, Brandon and
the man himself invariably neglect to lob the "grenades" back, much less
failing to detonate any of your own?
Another damp quib from Hines, trying to sound military & - he wishes -
manly....
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122170608.636983.165710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Of course you do - "Uriah N. Owen" seems to be very busy on the e-mail for
someone who can read SGM threads but curiously cannot post his own messages
directly.
Is this usual in Turkey? Or just in turkeys like you?
Peter Stewart
news:1122170608.636983.165710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~
Uriah N. Owen sent me a message yesterday that he plans to post another
message on the newsgroup in a few days. He indicated that he has some
more questions for you.
Of course you do - "Uriah N. Owen" seems to be very busy on the e-mail for
someone who can read SGM threads but curiously cannot post his own messages
directly.
Is this usual in Turkey? Or just in turkeys like you?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122170608.636983.165710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
By the way, this new venture of Richardson's in "channeling" the
pronouncements of his spirit-companion "Uriah N. Owen" could possibly get
him employment with another Psychic Association, if only he can find one
that is solvent and as careless in recruitment as it is lacking in
foresight.
Peter Stewart
news:1122170608.636983.165710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~
Uriah N. Owen sent me a message yesterday that he plans to post another
message on the newsgroup in a few days. He indicated that he has some
more questions for you.
Good luck, Peter.
By the way, this new venture of Richardson's in "channeling" the
pronouncements of his spirit-companion "Uriah N. Owen" could possibly get
him employment with another Psychic Association, if only he can find one
that is solvent and as careless in recruitment as it is lacking in
foresight.
Peter Stewart
-
CED
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
Peter Stewart wrote:
Where did Mr Richardson meet Uriah N. Owen? Was it at that bar in
which DR was brawling?
CED
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122170608.636983.165710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~
Uriah N. Owen sent me a message yesterday that he plans to post another
message on the newsgroup in a few days. He indicated that he has some
more questions for you.
Good luck, Peter.
Peter:
Where did Mr Richardson meet Uriah N. Owen? Was it at that bar in
which DR was brawling?
CED
By the way, this new venture of Richardson's in "channeling" the
pronouncements of his spirit-companion "Uriah N. Owen" could possibly get
him employment with another Psychic Association, if only he can find one
that is solvent and as careless in recruitment as it is lacking in
foresight.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1122172871.077795.279060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think the encounter happened in his looking-glass, in a monologue
more-or-less like this:
Richardson (donning his leather gear): "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's
the greatest and most admired genealogist in the world?"
Mirror: "How should I know, stupid - I'm stick here, hanging on your wall.
Ask Uriah."
Richardson: "But he's in the wilds of Turkey, far from computers except when
he astral-travels to SLC, Utah."
Mirror: "So what's the problem? You'll make it to suit yourself up anyway."
Richardson: "Fine, thanks for your collegial help, I'll ask myself myself."
Peter Stewart
news:1122172871.077795.279060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122170608.636983.165710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~
Uriah N. Owen sent me a message yesterday that he plans to post another
message on the newsgroup in a few days. He indicated that he has some
more questions for you.
Good luck, Peter.
Peter:
Where did Mr Richardson meet Uriah N. Owen? Was it at that bar in
which DR was brawling?
I think the encounter happened in his looking-glass, in a monologue
more-or-less like this:
Richardson (donning his leather gear): "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's
the greatest and most admired genealogist in the world?"
Mirror: "How should I know, stupid - I'm stick here, hanging on your wall.
Ask Uriah."
Richardson: "But he's in the wilds of Turkey, far from computers except when
he astral-travels to SLC, Utah."
Mirror: "So what's the problem? You'll make it to suit yourself up anyway."
Richardson: "Fine, thanks for your collegial help, I'll ask myself myself."
Peter Stewart
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Private Is Private. Public Is Public. It's That Simple.
STOP FEEDING TROLLS GUYS
anything after AD1600. is OT in here
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah royalancestry@msn.com
hangs out with UFO nuttets
http://www.aliendave.com/MUFON_Meetingsnews.html
D. Spencer Hines poguemidden@hotmail.com
is a full time usenet nutter - could even be in prison with ime on his
hands
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q= ... a=N&tab=wg
Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Genealogics And Audrey Hepburn shows hi s
level
all clowns with no self discipline
and showing classic symptom of high blood preasure or impending
Alzheimer's
or a cronic serious psychological conditionand doing nothing in RL
http://www.netspeed.com.au/ is the only ISP mentioned
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~socgen/Medieval.htm
Newsgroup for Genealogy in the period from roughly AD500 to AD1600.
CHARTER: soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.genealogy.medieval is for genealogy and family history discussion
among people researching individuals living during medieval times, as
well as related topics. The primary focus of the group is likely to
be on Europe and neighboring regions, but postings about genealogy in
other areas during this time period are welcomed. The medieval period
is loosely defined for the purposes of this group as the period
extending from the breakup of the (Western) Roman Empire until the
time public records (such as church, tax, and census records) relating
to the general population began to be kept. This period would extend
roughly from AD 500 to AD 1600, but these limits are not intended to
exclude related topics of discussion lying outside of these
boundaries.
The group is open to anyone with an interest in genealogy in the time
period in question, including, but not limited to: royal and noble
descents, origins of American colonists, feudal descent of property,
value of pre-historical sources (such as sagas), adoption of surnames
and arms by families, source availability and reliability, and reviews
and correction of published works.
The group is open to discussions of other related topics falling
outside the boundaries of the period, such as the genealogy of modern
nobility and genealogical links to antiquity. On the other hand,
postings of a general historical or cultural nature which are
completely unrelated to genealogy are not welcome even when falling
within the medieval period.
next stage is to netcop them and get their accounts closed
I only dropped by with a serious on topic question ¨
but no point in bothering right now
and another newsgroup bites the dust
Hugh W
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1122159550.447616.91690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
anything after AD1600. is OT in here
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah royalancestry@msn.com
hangs out with UFO nuttets
http://www.aliendave.com/MUFON_Meetingsnews.html
D. Spencer Hines poguemidden@hotmail.com
is a full time usenet nutter - could even be in prison with ime on his
hands
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q= ... a=N&tab=wg
Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Genealogics And Audrey Hepburn shows hi s
level
all clowns with no self discipline
and showing classic symptom of high blood preasure or impending
Alzheimer's
or a cronic serious psychological conditionand doing nothing in RL
http://www.netspeed.com.au/ is the only ISP mentioned
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~socgen/Medieval.htm
Newsgroup for Genealogy in the period from roughly AD500 to AD1600.
CHARTER: soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.genealogy.medieval is for genealogy and family history discussion
among people researching individuals living during medieval times, as
well as related topics. The primary focus of the group is likely to
be on Europe and neighboring regions, but postings about genealogy in
other areas during this time period are welcomed. The medieval period
is loosely defined for the purposes of this group as the period
extending from the breakup of the (Western) Roman Empire until the
time public records (such as church, tax, and census records) relating
to the general population began to be kept. This period would extend
roughly from AD 500 to AD 1600, but these limits are not intended to
exclude related topics of discussion lying outside of these
boundaries.
The group is open to anyone with an interest in genealogy in the time
period in question, including, but not limited to: royal and noble
descents, origins of American colonists, feudal descent of property,
value of pre-historical sources (such as sagas), adoption of surnames
and arms by families, source availability and reliability, and reviews
and correction of published works.
The group is open to discussions of other related topics falling
outside the boundaries of the period, such as the genealogy of modern
nobility and genealogical links to antiquity. On the other hand,
postings of a general historical or cultural nature which are
completely unrelated to genealogy are not welcome even when falling
within the medieval period.
next stage is to netcop them and get their accounts closed
I only dropped by with a serious on topic question ¨
but no point in bothering right now
and another newsgroup bites the dust
Hugh W
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1122159550.447616.91690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Spencer ~
To the Newsgroup:
You will notice that Mr. Richardson is trying to begin another dispute.
Only he and the unbalanced DSH seem to care about the nature of Leo's
post. Solitaire has said nothing.
It seems that Mr. Richardson thrives on these disputes.
CED
That Leo claims he doesn't remember what he did yesterday is very
concerning. Perhaps Leo is suffering from an early case of senility.
Either that, or Leo is lying to the whole newsgroup. If the latter is
the case, his credility is zero.
This is fits the same pattern with Peter Stewart. First he tells us
what he wants us to think, then he slowly dribbles out the truth. All
in all, both men have turned in very shabby performances lately.
The truth is the truth is the truth. It's that simple.
DR
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Yep...
Leo is definitely dodging the question.
Caught by the short hairs...
DSH
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122157853.438661.230380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Yes or no? Did you post Solitaire's private e-mail to you or not?
If
| you did, it's a very inappropriate thing to do.
|
| Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple, Leo.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Private Is Private. Public Is Public. It's That Simple.
"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e32ce2$0$18646$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
Thank you, Hugh, for a sane and hilarious post this time.
I wonder if "Uriah N. Owen" came down to earth on a UFO in Utah, and is now
masquerading as "Uriah the Turk" to probe some Asians for a change....
Anyone who believes in this stuff is likely to be daft enough to take
"potluck" at Richardson's place, I suppose. With luck, he and his supporters
will hop aboard a passing comet soon & head back to the home planet.
Peter Stewart
news:42e32ce2$0$18646$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
STOP FEEDING TROLLS GUYS
anything after AD1600. is OT in here
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah royalancestry@msn.com
hangs out with UFO nuttets
http://www.aliendave.com/MUFON_Meetingsnews.html
Thank you, Hugh, for a sane and hilarious post this time.
I wonder if "Uriah N. Owen" came down to earth on a UFO in Utah, and is now
masquerading as "Uriah the Turk" to probe some Asians for a change....
Anyone who believes in this stuff is likely to be daft enough to take
"potluck" at Richardson's place, I suppose. With luck, he and his supporters
will hop aboard a passing comet soon & head back to the home planet.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
Dear Peter ~
As with the recent Dr. Kelley brouhaha, you've made yet another
erroneous and faulty assumption about me. This time you've assumed
wrongly that I am Uriah N. Owen. Sigh. No, Peter.
I am not Uriah N. Owen. Nor is John Brandon. Nor is Spencer Hines. I
just posted for Uriah, that's all. I wonder how many times I'll have
to repeat this before you get it.
You really are behaving like an old git, just like Uriah said.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
As with the recent Dr. Kelley brouhaha, you've made yet another
erroneous and faulty assumption about me. This time you've assumed
wrongly that I am Uriah N. Owen. Sigh. No, Peter.
I am not Uriah N. Owen. Nor is John Brandon. Nor is Spencer Hines. I
just posted for Uriah, that's all. I wonder how many times I'll have
to repeat this before you get it.
You really are behaving like an old git, just like Uriah said.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1122172871.077795.279060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122170608.636983.165710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~
Uriah N. Owen sent me a message yesterday that he plans to post another
message on the newsgroup in a few days. He indicated that he has some
more questions for you.
Good luck, Peter.
Peter:
Where did Mr Richardson meet Uriah N. Owen? Was it at that bar in
which DR was brawling?
I think the encounter happened in his looking-glass, in a monologue
more-or-less like this:
Richardson (donning his leather gear): "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's
the greatest and most admired genealogist in the world?"
Mirror: "How should I know, stupid - I'm stick here, hanging on your wall.
Ask Uriah."
Richardson: "But he's in the wilds of Turkey, far from computers except when
he astral-travels to SLC, Utah."
Mirror: "So what's the problem? You'll make it to suit yourself up anyway."
Richardson: "Fine, thanks for your collegial help, I'll ask myself myself."
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122189475.602653.182360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
This sounds like a bit of "Cockney" dialogue improvised by a thick-tongued
Bronx actor playing Alfred Dolittle in 'My Fair Lady'.
No dice. We all saw through your hopelessly bungled attempt to compose and
"relay" a message from "Uriah" while at the same time claiming in his
peculiar voice that he had read the SGM thread for himself.
You can't have it both ways - either he is online or off, but there is no
in-between.
Unless UNO is in the Twilight Zone, of course, along with your UFO-buddies.
Are you quite sure his middle initial is "N" and not "F"?
Peter Stewart
news:1122189475.602653.182360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~
As with the recent Dr. Kelley brouhaha, you've made yet another
erroneous and faulty assumption about me. This time you've assumed
wrongly that I am Uriah N. Owen. Sigh. No, Peter.
I am not Uriah N. Owen. Nor is John Brandon. Nor is Spencer Hines. I
just posted for Uriah, that's all. I wonder how many times I'll have
to repeat this before you get it.
You really are behaving like an old git, just like Uriah said.
This sounds like a bit of "Cockney" dialogue improvised by a thick-tongued
Bronx actor playing Alfred Dolittle in 'My Fair Lady'.
No dice. We all saw through your hopelessly bungled attempt to compose and
"relay" a message from "Uriah" while at the same time claiming in his
peculiar voice that he had read the SGM thread for himself.
You can't have it both ways - either he is online or off, but there is no
in-between.
Unless UNO is in the Twilight Zone, of course, along with your UFO-buddies.
Are you quite sure his middle initial is "N" and not "F"?
Peter Stewart