Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart
Dear Newsgroup ~
Uriah N. Owen contacted me today and asked me to post the following
response to Peter Stewart. Mr. Owen's words speak for themselves.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Reply:
Stewart, you are behaving as an old git. You post wrongly accusing Mr.
Richardson of really being "Uriah Owen" without a shred of evidence AND
you want others to do your detective work for you! -Hoisted by your own
petard - or shall I say blather!
It is so easy to sit, in what the Americans call the "peanut gallery"
and cast stones, but so far the only evidence that I have that either
of you are real persons, is that Mr. Richardson has published many
articles and books on genealogy. (BTW, I have been pouring over Mr.
Richardson's book, "Plantagenet Ancestry" and want to compliment him on
such a scholarly work).
In fairness, I wish I could say the same of your published works,
Stewart, but alas, I could not find a scrap of anything noteable which
bore your name.
Would you be so kind as to point out at least one of your recent
pblished books similar in scholarship to that of Mr. Richardson, or can
I assume that you only exude bumf as exhibited in this thread.
Cheers Uriah
Uriah N. Owen contacted me today and asked me to post the following
response to Peter Stewart. Mr. Owen's words speak for themselves.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Reply:
Stewart, you are behaving as an old git. You post wrongly accusing Mr.
Richardson of really being "Uriah Owen" without a shred of evidence AND
you want others to do your detective work for you! -Hoisted by your own
petard - or shall I say blather!
It is so easy to sit, in what the Americans call the "peanut gallery"
and cast stones, but so far the only evidence that I have that either
of you are real persons, is that Mr. Richardson has published many
articles and books on genealogy. (BTW, I have been pouring over Mr.
Richardson's book, "Plantagenet Ancestry" and want to compliment him on
such a scholarly work).
In fairness, I wish I could say the same of your published works,
Stewart, but alas, I could not find a scrap of anything noteable which
bore your name.
Would you be so kind as to point out at least one of your recent
pblished books similar in scholarship to that of Mr. Richardson, or can
I assume that you only exude bumf as exhibited in this thread.
Cheers Uriah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122011341.742431.234220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If "Uriah" has been reading the thread as represented above, how is it that
he is not subscribed to the list or connected to the newsgroup and able to
post directly here for himself? He could of course do this through Google if
he used that method to read the "bumf" [sic].
And just what thread did he mean, when he wrote this before I had posted in
the current thread at all?
Peter Stewart
news:1122011341.742431.234220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Uriah N. Owen contacted me today and asked me to post the following
response to Peter Stewart. Mr. Owen's words speak for themselves.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Reply:
Stewart, you are behaving as an old git. You post wrongly accusing Mr.
Richardson of really being "Uriah Owen" without a shred of evidence AND
you want others to do your detective work for you! -Hoisted by your own
petard - or shall I say blather!
It is so easy to sit, in what the Americans call the "peanut gallery"
and cast stones, but so far the only evidence that I have that either
of you are real persons, is that Mr. Richardson has published many
articles and books on genealogy. (BTW, I have been pouring over Mr.
Richardson's book, "Plantagenet Ancestry" and want to compliment him on
such a scholarly work).
In fairness, I wish I could say the same of your published works,
Stewart, but alas, I could not find a scrap of anything noteable which
bore your name.
Would you be so kind as to point out at least one of your recent
pblished books similar in scholarship to that of Mr. Richardson, or can
I assume that you only exude bumf as exhibited in this thread.
If "Uriah" has been reading the thread as represented above, how is it that
he is not subscribed to the list or connected to the newsgroup and able to
post directly here for himself? He could of course do this through Google if
he used that method to read the "bumf" [sic].
And just what thread did he mean, when he wrote this before I had posted in
the current thread at all?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart
You'll need to ask Mr. Owen these questions directly yourself.
I might say you're already off to a bad start with Mr. Owen by alleging
I wrote his post. Mr. Owen is quite capable of writing his own
messages.
I predict this thread is going to be a lot of fun.
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
< <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
< news:1122011341.742431.234220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
< > Dear Newsgroup ~
< >
< > Uriah N. Owen contacted me today and asked me to post the following
< > response to Peter Stewart. Mr. Owen's words speak for themselves.
< >
< > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< >
< > Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
< >
< > Reply:
< >
< > Stewart, you are behaving as an old git. You post wrongly accusing
Mr.
< > Richardson of really being "Uriah Owen" without a shred of evidence
AND
< > you want others to do your detective work for you! -Hoisted by your
own
< > petard - or shall I say blather!
< >
< > It is so easy to sit, in what the Americans call the "peanut
gallery"
< > and cast stones, but so far the only evidence that I have that
either
< > of you are real persons, is that Mr. Richardson has published many
< > articles and books on genealogy. (BTW, I have been pouring over Mr.
< > Richardson's book, "Plantagenet Ancestry" and want to compliment
him on
< > such a scholarly work).
< >
< > In fairness, I wish I could say the same of your published works,
< > Stewart, but alas, I could not find a scrap of anything noteable
which
< > bore your name.
< >
< > Would you be so kind as to point out at least one of your recent
< > pblished books similar in scholarship to that of Mr. Richardson, or
can
< > I assume that you only exude bumf as exhibited in this thread.
<
< If "Uriah" has been reading the thread as represented above, how is
it that
< he is not subscribed to the list or connected to the newsgroup and
able to
< post directly here for himself? He could of course do this through
Google if
< he used that method to read the "bumf" [sic].
<
< And just what thread did he mean, when he wrote this before I had
posted in
< the current thread at all?
<
< Peter Stewart
I might say you're already off to a bad start with Mr. Owen by alleging
I wrote his post. Mr. Owen is quite capable of writing his own
messages.
I predict this thread is going to be a lot of fun.
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
< <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
< news:1122011341.742431.234220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
< > Dear Newsgroup ~
< >
< > Uriah N. Owen contacted me today and asked me to post the following
< > response to Peter Stewart. Mr. Owen's words speak for themselves.
< >
< > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< >
< > Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
< >
< > Reply:
< >
< > Stewart, you are behaving as an old git. You post wrongly accusing
Mr.
< > Richardson of really being "Uriah Owen" without a shred of evidence
AND
< > you want others to do your detective work for you! -Hoisted by your
own
< > petard - or shall I say blather!
< >
< > It is so easy to sit, in what the Americans call the "peanut
gallery"
< > and cast stones, but so far the only evidence that I have that
either
< > of you are real persons, is that Mr. Richardson has published many
< > articles and books on genealogy. (BTW, I have been pouring over Mr.
< > Richardson's book, "Plantagenet Ancestry" and want to compliment
him on
< > such a scholarly work).
< >
< > In fairness, I wish I could say the same of your published works,
< > Stewart, but alas, I could not find a scrap of anything noteable
which
< > bore your name.
< >
< > Would you be so kind as to point out at least one of your recent
< > pblished books similar in scholarship to that of Mr. Richardson, or
can
< > I assume that you only exude bumf as exhibited in this thread.
<
< If "Uriah" has been reading the thread as represented above, how is
it that
< he is not subscribed to the list or connected to the newsgroup and
able to
< post directly here for himself? He could of course do this through
Google if
< he used that method to read the "bumf" [sic].
<
< And just what thread did he mean, when he wrote this before I had
posted in
< the current thread at all?
<
< Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122025226.886579.75350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
O dear - and will the big bad wolf Uriah huff and puff and blow my house
down?
Your post is infantile. You can spare yourself the trouble of setting up
newsgroup access for yourself as UNO. The only Uriah you resemble was
surnamed Heap.
Peter Stewart
news:1122025226.886579.75350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You'll need to ask Mr. Owen these questions directly yourself.
I might say you're already off to a bad start with Mr. Owen by alleging
I wrote his post. Mr. Owen is quite capable of writing his own
messages.
I predict this thread is going to be a lot of fun.
O dear - and will the big bad wolf Uriah huff and puff and blow my house
down?
Your post is infantile. You can spare yourself the trouble of setting up
newsgroup access for yourself as UNO. The only Uriah you resemble was
surnamed Heap.
Peter Stewart
-
R. Battle
Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart (OT)
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Hi Doug,
Back when Uriah N. Owen was posting last time, it was the stated opinion
of several people that he was a "sock puppet" (or to put it more
delicately, a pen-name) for Robert Todd. Would you be willing to state
for the record that he is not, as far as you know, anyone other than an
actual person whose real name is Uriah N. Owen? The same question goes
for the man in question, of course, once he starts posting here himself.
-Robert Battle
P.S. To Peter Stewart - *if* "Uriah N. Owen" is not the genuine article, I
think it more likely that the name was picked to approximate "unknown"
than to abbreviate "UNO" (though maybe both were in mind).
P.P.S. A point against "Uriah N. Owen" being a pen name for Robert Todd or
anyone else is that one would hardly think that the former's posts would
be given more weight than the latter's in this newsgroup.
Dear Newsgroup ~
Uriah N. Owen contacted me today and asked me to post the following
response to Peter Stewart. Mr. Owen's words speak for themselves.
snip
Hi Doug,
Back when Uriah N. Owen was posting last time, it was the stated opinion
of several people that he was a "sock puppet" (or to put it more
delicately, a pen-name) for Robert Todd. Would you be willing to state
for the record that he is not, as far as you know, anyone other than an
actual person whose real name is Uriah N. Owen? The same question goes
for the man in question, of course, once he starts posting here himself.
-Robert Battle
P.S. To Peter Stewart - *if* "Uriah N. Owen" is not the genuine article, I
think it more likely that the name was picked to approximate "unknown"
than to abbreviate "UNO" (though maybe both were in mind).
P.P.S. A point against "Uriah N. Owen" being a pen name for Robert Todd or
anyone else is that one would hardly think that the former's posts would
be given more weight than the latter's in this newsgroup.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart (OT)
"R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.61b.0507220259390.195206@dante68.u.washington.edu...
This is quite right, Robert, but remember that we are speaking of a ploy
worked out between Todd and Richardson, so that no logic is to be expected.
"Uriah N. Owen" had no purpose but to lend the support of another name to
positions that they could not extricate themselves from without admitting
error & defeat.
It's a wonder he did not appear again when Todd tried his next splurge of
nonsense over "fitz" - that is what led me to suppose that the figment of
wishful thinking was more likely from Richardson's brain than his.
Peter Stewart
news:Pine.A41.4.61b.0507220259390.195206@dante68.u.washington.edu...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Uriah N. Owen contacted me today and asked me to post the following
response to Peter Stewart. Mr. Owen's words speak for themselves.
snip
Hi Doug,
Back when Uriah N. Owen was posting last time, it was the stated opinion
of several people that he was a "sock puppet" (or to put it more
delicately, a pen-name) for Robert Todd. Would you be willing to state
for the record that he is not, as far as you know, anyone other than an
actual person whose real name is Uriah N. Owen? The same question goes
for the man in question, of course, once he starts posting here himself.
-Robert Battle
P.S. To Peter Stewart - *if* "Uriah N. Owen" is not the genuine article, I
think it more likely that the name was picked to approximate "unknown"
than to abbreviate "UNO" (though maybe both were in mind).
P.P.S. A point against "Uriah N. Owen" being a pen name for Robert Todd or
anyone else is that one would hardly think that the former's posts would
be given more weight than the latter's in this newsgroup.
This is quite right, Robert, but remember that we are speaking of a ploy
worked out between Todd and Richardson, so that no logic is to be expected.
"Uriah N. Owen" had no purpose but to lend the support of another name to
positions that they could not extricate themselves from without admitting
error & defeat.
It's a wonder he did not appear again when Todd tried his next splurge of
nonsense over "fitz" - that is what led me to suppose that the figment of
wishful thinking was more likely from Richardson's brain than his.
Peter Stewart
-
Paul
Re: Uriah N. Owen - STOP IT!
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122025226.886579.75350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, IT WILL NOT BE A LOT OF FUN.
I've been alerted to this thread, and U.N.Owen could only be Robert Todd,
but it is CLEAR from his past posts that he posted personal attacks ON ME
with the full knowledge of one Douglas Richardson (as he could not have
known about my truck, even visiting in SLC without DR's aid). This intimate
knowledge behind the scenes was also betrayed by Mike Welch's posting that
he knew the identity too.
There has been a LONG history of attacks on me by Robert Todd with Doug's
full knowledge and participation - CERTTAINLY Doug and the others
(1) did not decry the abuse, as he hypocritically does in recent threads,
and
(2) complained nothing about the use of aliases by his henchmen.
It is UTTERLY HYPOCRITICAL for DR and his group to attack others for using
an alias (which Peter doesn't) and also calling for collegiality when they
have perpetrated the type of things that are in the archives of this group
(even Ken Finton was embarrassed). See, for example:
Robert Todd had used such stupid disguises as Golova (empty head)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc ... ode=source
and Nemyetski, and, of course, Hines played right along with them.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc ... ode=source
There was also Uriah N. Owen:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc ... ode=source
And Zorro, with full knowledge of Doug (see thread):
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc ... ode=source
So Douglas and friends are well known for not only using aliases (and they
never called for those individuals to drop the identities), but using those
aliases for false attacks on, for some strange reason, me.
Stop making personal attacks, or trying to pry into and divulge personal
information, or we'll start discussing who was banned from what bar for
abusing patrons or who was going to leave the field of genealogy to work for
the Psychic Friends' Network (but they shortly thereafter went banrupt; I
saved those two emails because they were so amazing).
Now LEAVE ME IN PEACE, and STOP THIS! Your hypocricy is astounding, and
competely transparent!
news:1122025226.886579.75350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You'll need to ask Mr. Owen these questions directly yourself.
I might say you're already off to a bad start with Mr. Owen by alleging
I wrote his post. Mr. Owen is quite capable of writing his own
messages.
I predict this thread is going to be a lot of fun.
DR
No, IT WILL NOT BE A LOT OF FUN.
I've been alerted to this thread, and U.N.Owen could only be Robert Todd,
but it is CLEAR from his past posts that he posted personal attacks ON ME
with the full knowledge of one Douglas Richardson (as he could not have
known about my truck, even visiting in SLC without DR's aid). This intimate
knowledge behind the scenes was also betrayed by Mike Welch's posting that
he knew the identity too.
There has been a LONG history of attacks on me by Robert Todd with Doug's
full knowledge and participation - CERTTAINLY Doug and the others
(1) did not decry the abuse, as he hypocritically does in recent threads,
and
(2) complained nothing about the use of aliases by his henchmen.
It is UTTERLY HYPOCRITICAL for DR and his group to attack others for using
an alias (which Peter doesn't) and also calling for collegiality when they
have perpetrated the type of things that are in the archives of this group
(even Ken Finton was embarrassed). See, for example:
Robert Todd had used such stupid disguises as Golova (empty head)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc ... ode=source
and Nemyetski, and, of course, Hines played right along with them.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc ... ode=source
There was also Uriah N. Owen:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc ... ode=source
And Zorro, with full knowledge of Doug (see thread):
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc ... ode=source
So Douglas and friends are well known for not only using aliases (and they
never called for those individuals to drop the identities), but using those
aliases for false attacks on, for some strange reason, me.
Stop making personal attacks, or trying to pry into and divulge personal
information, or we'll start discussing who was banned from what bar for
abusing patrons or who was going to leave the field of genealogy to work for
the Psychic Friends' Network (but they shortly thereafter went banrupt; I
saved those two emails because they were so amazing).
Now LEAVE ME IN PEACE, and STOP THIS! Your hypocricy is astounding, and
competely transparent!
-
John Brandon
Re: Uriah N. Owen - STOP IT!
It is UTTERLY HYPOCRITICAL for DR and his group to attack others for using
an alias (which Peter doesn't) and also calling for collegiality when
they
have perpetrated the type of things that are in the archives of this
group
(even Ken Finton was embarrassed).
So now Paul is claiming that "Peter" doesn't use an alias. This gem of
truth from the man who thought he had done hours of research for me
based on a single email about the St Katherine-by-Tower parish register
and his rather idle contributions to the following two threads:
http://tinyurl.com/82oh9
http://tinyurl.com/dxng8
-
John Brandon
Re: Uriah N. Owen - STOP IT!
To switch back to a bit of genealogy (in reference to the second thread
above) ...
The _ODNB_'s sketch of Laurence Wright, M.D., of Wright's Bridge,
states that his mother was "Bennet, daughter of Laurence Blaseby, a
London merchant," and mentions his connection to the New England
Winthrops --
"Wright married Mary Duke (d. 1698), the daughter of John Duke (d.
1629), physician, of Foulton Hall, Ramsey, and Colchester, Essex; they
had two sons, Henry and Laurence. Duke's mother-in-law, Anne (née
Snelling), was first cousin to John Winthrop the elder, a tie of
kinship which Wright exploited to establish close personal, religious,
and financial bonds with the puritan Winthrops. In December 1628 Wright
cured John Winthrop the elder of a dangerous fever, and thereafter the
London physician corresponded frequently with his famous kinsman,
acting for much of the 1630s and 1640s as one of Winthrop's financial
and business advisers in London."
above) ...
The _ODNB_'s sketch of Laurence Wright, M.D., of Wright's Bridge,
states that his mother was "Bennet, daughter of Laurence Blaseby, a
London merchant," and mentions his connection to the New England
Winthrops --
"Wright married Mary Duke (d. 1698), the daughter of John Duke (d.
1629), physician, of Foulton Hall, Ramsey, and Colchester, Essex; they
had two sons, Henry and Laurence. Duke's mother-in-law, Anne (née
Snelling), was first cousin to John Winthrop the elder, a tie of
kinship which Wright exploited to establish close personal, religious,
and financial bonds with the puritan Winthrops. In December 1628 Wright
cured John Winthrop the elder of a dangerous fever, and thereafter the
London physician corresponded frequently with his famous kinsman,
acting for much of the 1630s and 1640s as one of Winthrop's financial
and business advisers in London."
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Yes, let's have some genealogy
Dear John ~
Yes, please, let's have some genealogy. I'm sick of hearing these
grown men whine.
DR
John Brandon wrote:
< To switch back to a bit of genealogy (in reference to the second
thread
< above) ...
<
< The _ODNB_'s sketch of Laurence Wright, M.D., of Wright's Bridge,
< states that his mother was "Bennet, daughter of Laurence Blaseby, a
< London merchant," and mentions his connection to the New England
< Winthrops --
<
< "Wright married Mary Duke (d. 1698), the daughter of John Duke (d.
< 1629), physician, of Foulton Hall, Ramsey, and Colchester, Essex;
they
< had two sons, Henry and Laurence. Duke's mother-in-law, Anne (née
< Snelling), was first cousin to John Winthrop the elder, a tie of
< kinship which Wright exploited to establish close personal,
religious,
< and financial bonds with the puritan Winthrops. In December 1628
Wright
< cured John Winthrop the elder of a dangerous fever, and thereafter
the
< London physician corresponded frequently with his famous kinsman,
< acting for much of the 1630s and 1640s as one of Winthrop's financial
< and business advisers in London."
Yes, please, let's have some genealogy. I'm sick of hearing these
grown men whine.
DR
John Brandon wrote:
< To switch back to a bit of genealogy (in reference to the second
thread
< above) ...
<
< The _ODNB_'s sketch of Laurence Wright, M.D., of Wright's Bridge,
< states that his mother was "Bennet, daughter of Laurence Blaseby, a
< London merchant," and mentions his connection to the New England
< Winthrops --
<
< "Wright married Mary Duke (d. 1698), the daughter of John Duke (d.
< 1629), physician, of Foulton Hall, Ramsey, and Colchester, Essex;
they
< had two sons, Henry and Laurence. Duke's mother-in-law, Anne (née
< Snelling), was first cousin to John Winthrop the elder, a tie of
< kinship which Wright exploited to establish close personal,
religious,
< and financial bonds with the puritan Winthrops. In December 1628
Wright
< cured John Winthrop the elder of a dangerous fever, and thereafter
the
< London physician corresponded frequently with his famous kinsman,
< acting for much of the 1630s and 1640s as one of Winthrop's financial
< and business advisers in London."