OT Richardson's goose is still around Fw: Private is privat

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

OT Richardson's goose is still around Fw: Private is privat

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 24 jul 2005 00:42:02

Douglas's happy merry-go-round. Yes or No, did I fight with everyone while
you were away? It is as simple as that. It is more than impropriate to lie
about people, especially in public.


----- Original Message -----

From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:30 AM
Subject: 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:
"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

Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 24 jul 2005 00:42:03

Just answer the question, Leo. Did you or did you not post a private
e-mail from Solitaire?

I don't find Solitaire's message in the archives, so I presume you
posted a private e-mail from him to you. If you posted his private
e-mail, it was a very inappropriate thing to do.

Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple.

DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Douglas's happy merry-go-round. Yes or No, did I fight with everyone while
you were away? It is as simple as that. It is more than impropriate to lie
about people, especially in public.



----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:30 AM
Subject: 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 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.






CED

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av CED » 24 jul 2005 00:42:03

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Just answer the question, Leo. Did you or did you not post a private
e-mail from Solitaire?

Mr Richardson:

This is none of your business. You are trying to start one of your
famous fights. Stop it now!

CED
I don't find Solitaire's message in the archives, so I presume you
posted a private e-mail from him to you. If you posted his private
e-mail, it was a very inappropriate thing to do.

Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple.

DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Douglas's happy merry-go-round. Yes or No, did I fight with everyone while
you were away? It is as simple as that. It is more than impropriate to lie
about people, especially in public.



----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:30 AM
Subject: 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 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.






Leo

OT Richardson Tantrum was Re: Private is private. Public is

Legg inn av Leo » 24 jul 2005 01:17:01

Your continuing this line is only showing up your inability to comprehend.
Perhaps I should repeat my suggestion, buy a pair of glasses, read _all_
messages, but then without a class in _comprehension English_ it still can't
sink in.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:53 AM
Subject: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.


Just answer the question, Leo. Did you or did you not post a private
e-mail from Solitaire?

I don't find Solitaire's message in the archives, so I presume you
posted a private e-mail from him to you. If you posted his private
e-mail, it was a very inappropriate thing to do.

Private is private. Public is public. It's that simple.

DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Douglas's happy merry-go-round. Yes or No, did I fight with everyone
while
you were away? It is as simple as that. It is more than impropriate to
lie
about people, especially in public.



----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:30 AM
Subject: 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 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

Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 24 jul 2005 08:37:07

We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line. This same kind of stunt has
gotten you into trouble in the past.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"Leo" wrote:
< Your continuing this line is only showing up your inability to
comprehend.
< Perhaps I should repeat my suggestion, buy a pair of glasses, read
_all_
< messages, but then without a class in _comprehension English_ it
still can't
< sink in.

Leo

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Leo » 24 jul 2005 09:55:01

If I post a private e-mail, I can do with it what I want. But is that what
you mean? I suppose not, but then say what you mean.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 5:37 PM
Subject: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.


We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line. This same kind of stunt has
gotten you into trouble in the past.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"Leo" wrote:
Your continuing this line is only showing up your inability to
comprehend.
Perhaps I should repeat my suggestion, buy a pair of glasses, read
_all_
messages, but then without a class in _comprehension English_ it
still can't
sink in.

CED

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av CED » 24 jul 2005 15:01:19

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line.

DR:
What is it that you fear if somebody in the group were to post to the
group a message sent privately? It would seem that, if a private
message were posted publicly, then the person sending the private
message might have a cause for compliant, but nobody else.

In this case, only "solitaire" has reason to complain if, indeed, his
private e-mail was made public. Mr. Richardson, you have no standing
to compain in this matter.

Do you have private e-mails out there which you don't want made public?

Are you trying to establish some kind of rule on making private matters
public? So far as I know, no such rule or custom exists. If such a
rule or custom exists, please document it. If not, shut up.

CED




This same kind of stunt has
gotten you into trouble in the past.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"Leo" wrote:
Your continuing this line is only showing up your inability to
comprehend.
Perhaps I should repeat my suggestion, buy a pair of glasses, read
_all_
messages, but then without a class in _comprehension English_ it
still can't
sink in.

IEJ

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av IEJ » 24 jul 2005 17:29:41

"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1122213679.355294.179790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line.

DR:
What is it that you fear if somebody in the group were to post to the
group a message sent privately? It would seem that, if a private
message were posted publicly, then the person sending the private
message might have a cause for compliant, but nobody else.

I don't understand why you can't give up your idea that Richardson is
fearing anything. The one most important rule in Academic and Scientific
world as well as in ordinary discussions between people working in and for
Companies is and has always been that no descent person present to the
public what's written in a private letter or mail.
That's the most important thing of all.
Only those who aren't capable of proper ethical behavior could possibly miss
that!

Inger E

CED

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av CED » 24 jul 2005 18:06:31

IEJ wrote:

The matter in question is between Leo and "solitaire." Why would Mr.
Richardson want to interfere in whatever happened between them?

It appears that Richardson is trying to pick another fight in order to
obscure something else. Are joining him in that effort? From our
previous exchanges, it is apparent that you have little understanding
of what is happening. So, unless you give good reason for interfering
in what happened between Leo and "Solitaire," you have no reason to
continue -- unless you are doing Richardson's bidding, an assumption
I shall make if you continue.



CED


"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1122213679.355294.179790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line.

DR:
What is it that you fear if somebody in the group were to post to the
group a message sent privately? It would seem that, if a private
message were posted publicly, then the person sending the private
message might have a cause for compliant, but nobody else.

I don't understand why you can't give up your idea that Richardson is
fearing anything. The one most important rule in Academic and Scientific
world as well as in ordinary discussions between people working in and for
Companies is and has always been that no descent person present to the
public what's written in a private letter or mail.
That's the most important thing of all.
Only those who aren't capable of proper ethical behavior could possibly miss
that!

Inger E

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 24 jul 2005 18:30:43

CED wrote:

Are you trying to establish some kind of rule on making private matters
public? So far as I know, no such rule or custom exists.

This custom does exist. It is part of general nettequite. It is in bad
form to post private email to a public forum. It is considered to be
rude both to the sender and to the group. However, the same could be
said of using a public forum for private communication, and more so, the
crossposting of this to multiple groups (as has been done with this
thread). It is in bad form to carry out an off-topic flame war to begin
with, or even an on-topic one that has gone beyond the point of reason.
In fact, just about everything that DR, Leo, Peter, Hans, CED, Hines,
Brandon and others have been addressing toward each other over the past
month has been a violation of nettequite and extremely discourteous to
the rest of the group, so a monumental degree of hypocrisy is involved
in any of these participants complaining about someone else violating
proper nettequite.

taf

IEJ

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av IEJ » 24 jul 2005 20:20:58

"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1122224791.645058.23280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

IEJ wrote:

The matter in question is between Leo and "solitaire." Why would Mr.
Richardson want to interfere in whatever happened between them?

Sorry but you seem not to get it at all: anyone who present a private mail
to the public is offending all members in the group showing off as a person
who aren't worthy of being regarded as a scholar no matter if said scholar
works at University, at an organisation or a company. THAT'S BAD. Bad
behavior nothing else.


It appears that Richardson is trying to pick another fight in order to
obscure something else. Are joining him in that effort? From our
previous exchanges, it is apparent that you have little understanding
of what is happening. So, unless you give good reason for interfering
in what happened between Leo and "Solitaire," you have no reason to
continue -- unless you are doing Richardson's bidding, an assumption
I shall make if you continue.

May I ask on which banana shell you jumped in if you believe deep in your
heart believe that it's only a 'thing' between Leo and "Solitaire"? Aren't
they grownup enough to defend themselves?

Inger E

Peter Stewart

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jul 2005 23:49:26

"IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:VlPEe.29763$d5.182702@newsb.telia.net...
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1122213679.355294.179790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line.

DR:
What is it that you fear if somebody in the group were to post to the
group a message sent privately? It would seem that, if a private
message were posted publicly, then the person sending the private
message might have a cause for compliant, but nobody else.

I don't understand why you can't give up your idea that Richardson is
fearing anything. The one most important rule in Academic and Scientific
world as well as in ordinary discussions between people working in and for
Companies is and has always been that no descent person present to the
public what's written in a private letter or mail.
That's the most important thing of all.
Only those who aren't capable of proper ethical behavior could possibly
miss
that!

Inger has shown us that she is not capable of "proper ethical" behavbiour -
otherwise she would have substantiated or withdrawn her charge that I am
"incapable of validating medieval texts".

Instead, she has fired off a self-serving fib and taken to her heels when
challenged. Unethical, improper.

And now she comes to lecture us all on ethics and propriety in support of
Richardson.

Why are we not surprised?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jul 2005 23:58:03

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:dc0j85$9d9$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
CED wrote:

Are you trying to establish some kind of rule on making private matters
public? So far as I know, no such rule or custom exists.

This custom does exist. It is part of general nettequite. It is in bad
form to post private email to a public forum. It is considered to be rude
both to the sender and to the group. However, the same could be said of
using a public forum for private communication, and more so, the
crossposting of this to multiple groups (as has been done with this
thread). It is in bad form to carry out an off-topic flame war to begin
with, or even an on-topic one that has gone beyond the point of reason. In
fact, just about everything that DR, Leo, Peter, Hans, CED, Hines, Brandon
and others have been addressing toward each other over the past month has
been a violation of nettequite and extremely discourteous to the rest of
the group, so a monumental degree of hypocrisy is involved in any of these
participants complaining about someone else violating proper nettequite.

Drivel - if your idea of "nettequite", or indeed "netiquette", requires
people who are maligned and misrepresented in flagrantly self-serving and
dishonest posts to keep quiet, and to sit by silently while this happens to
others as well, then it is your own conventional thoughtlessness that
violates the rights of others.

Richardson, Brandon and HInes are learning - slowly, as always, but from an
unusual number of correspondents lately that amy help to pick up their
mental pace - that they will not (NOT EVER) get away with their lies and
distortions.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jul 2005 00:10:45

""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:02a801c590a4$02d69220$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Dear Inger,

What Richardson may be fearing is that his remarks that Peter Stewart is
_prissy_ (i.e. is a homosexual) may come to haunt him. One message blasted
at Richardson implies that Richardson frequents _prissy_ places and that
his kettle is o so black.

Goodness me - I'm sure no-one can claim to have spotted me in such a place,
but I wonder if Richardson is game to say the same.

Peter Stewart

Leo

OT Thanks Todd Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It'

Legg inn av Leo » 25 jul 2005 00:12:01

Dear Todd,

Many thanks for speaking out.

Sadly I think the matter is much less clear cut than the way how you explain
matters in your e-mail.

It is not easy to draw the line between what is and what is not for the
benefit of the group. Personalities _do_ come into it. The personal approach
to research, questions, replies is all part of the whole package of gen-med.
When disecting a person's the behaviour, it may appear not to be part of
genealogy, in my opinion it is. Bluster has to be exposed.

I grew up very much with a rule that if anyone makes a statement you have to
establish whether you can contribute and whether the matter involves you. By
remaining silent, you agree and approve. If you do not agree or approve you
have to speak up, bad netiquette or not.

By being kind and polite allowing bluster to rule you also breach
netiquette, in my opinion, as you allow a sore to fester and grow which also
damages the group. And so we must choose_Richardson forces us_ do we have a
nice polite group ruled by Richardson who unchallenged produces questionable
material, or do we try _first_ to make Richardson see sense and falling
that_which it always seems to do_ expose him? At least the questionable
information is challenged. And by that the group profits even if presented
in an often dreadful manner_again Richardson forces us to this_.

Yes, I try to take matters most of the time to the point you could expect
reason to be involved, which is why I do not react to Hines.

Richardson is a totally different matter. He has placed himself on a soapbox
and a pedestal and expects everyone to agree with him. Especially as he has
produced two apparently monumental books (I have seen only one) he demands
to be taken seriously and seriously we take him, until the point is reached
where matters have gone too far.

How can we take him seriously when he demands an answer _while he has the
answer in the same e-mail in which he demands it? How many times has he
ignored replies and keeps on coming back to one thing? And in my opinion
even that one point is questionable as it is open to interpretation.

The so-called private message is in two parts.
I posted TO THE NEWSGROUP
You want to discuss anything do it IN THE F...... NEWSGROUP
-----------------------------doesn't this alone make it public not private?
The second part
WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE TWO PEOPLE, IT SHOULD
BE IN EMAIL

Here I choose to disagree as I said before the manners/approach is part of
the public domain as it involves approach to genealogical matters. If you
read the message Solitaire replied to you will see my message was about the
methodology of Richardson. Which I still believe is a topic important to
Gen-Med's reason for existing.

The hectoring I frequently receive from Richardson shows how netiquette
conscious he is and most of the time he knows answers/reasons but for the
sake of bullying me he chooses to ignore those. When attacks are made in
public, surely, a person has the right, if not duty, to defend himself in
public_especially when private communications have proven useless. Again I
believe it is for the benefit of the group that facts and matters are dealt
with in public. The dishonesty of Richardson appears monumental.

Am I a hypocrite in your book?

Thanks for giving your opinion.
Best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.


CED wrote:

Are you trying to establish some kind of rule on making private matters
public? So far as I know, no such rule or custom exists.

This custom does exist. It is part of general nettequite. It is in bad
form to post private email to a public forum. It is considered to be rude
both to the sender and to the group. However, the same could be said of
using a public forum for private communication, and more so, the
crossposting of this to multiple groups (as has been done with this
thread). It is in bad form to carry out an off-topic flame war to begin
with, or even an on-topic one that has gone beyond the point of reason. In
fact, just about everything that DR, Leo, Peter, Hans, CED, Hines, Brandon
and others have been addressing toward each other over the past month has
been a violation of nettequite and extremely discourteous to the rest of
the group, so a monumental degree of hypocrisy is involved in any of these
participants complaining about someone else violating proper nettequite.

taf

Alaca

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Alaca » 25 jul 2005 00:58:58

IEJ wrote: VlPEe.29763$d5.182702@newsb.telia.net,

"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1122213679.355294.179790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line.

DR:
What is it that you fear if somebody in the group were to post to the
group a message sent privately? It would seem that, if a private
message were posted publicly, then the person sending the private
message might have a cause for compliant, but nobody else.

I don't understand why you can't give up your idea that Richardson is
fearing anything. The one most important rule in Academic and
Scientific world as well as in ordinary discussions between people
working in and for Companies is and has always been that no descent
person present to the public what's written in a private letter or
mail.
That's the most important thing of all.
Only those who aren't capable of proper ethical behavior could
possibly miss that!

Inger E

Why did you bring this shit to SHM?

--
P.A.

CED

It is not so simple when Richardson is posting was Re: Priva

Legg inn av CED » 25 jul 2005 01:01:17

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

Dear Todd:

I am, and should, be chastised for indulging in a 'flame war' that has
gone beyond the point of reason. I do not consider my posts (for the
most part) to be off-topic, as they concern, at least indirectly,
on-topic matters and the conduct of a major message poster in this
group, Mr. Douglas Richardson.

I have just recently retired. My interest in medieval history drew me
to this group. I have believe that medieval historians have neglected
genealogical evidence.

For some time I stood by, lurking (as some would call it), watching the
messages go by and, occasionally, keeping record of some which were
helpful to me as a historian. However, as time past, the abuse Mr.
Richardson heaped on others caught my attention. I read a great part of
his postings in the archives and discerned a pattern of abuse, twisted
logic, and inverted reasoning which was at odds with the principles of
modern scholarship and should not be tolerated.

On 18 July of this year, I posted the following message:
"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."

Does your reprimand include my following up on that message?

I hope not because, for the good of the group, somebody should be alert
to Mr. Richardson's conduct and point out the errors of his ways.


CED

CED wrote:

Are you trying to establish some kind of rule on making private matters
public? So far as I know, no such rule or custom exists.

This custom does exist. It is part of general nettequite. It is in bad
form to post private email to a public forum. It is considered to be
rude both to the sender and to the group. However, the same could be
said of using a public forum for private communication, and more so, the
crossposting of this to multiple groups (as has been done with this
thread). It is in bad form to carry out an off-topic flame war to begin
with, or even an on-topic one that has gone beyond the point of reason.
In fact, just about everything that DR, Leo, Peter, Hans, CED, Hines,
Brandon and others have been addressing toward each other over the past
month has been a violation of nettequite and extremely discourteous to
the rest of the group, so a monumental degree of hypocrisy is involved
in any of these participants complaining about someone else violating
proper nettequite.

taf

Leo

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Leo » 25 jul 2005 01:06:02

Dear Inger,

What Richardson may be fearing is that his remarks that Peter Stewart is
_prissy_ (i.e. is a homosexual) may come to haunt him. One message blasted
at Richardson implies that Richardson frequents _prissy_ places and that his
kettle is o so black.


----- Original Message -----
From: "IEJ" <Inger_ejohansson@telia.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.


"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1122213679.355294.179790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line.

DR:
What is it that you fear if somebody in the group were to post to the
group a message sent privately? It would seem that, if a private
message were posted publicly, then the person sending the private
message might have a cause for compliant, but nobody else.

I don't understand why you can't give up your idea that Richardson is
fearing anything. The one most important rule in Academic and Scientific
world as well as in ordinary discussions between people working in and for
Companies is and has always been that no descent person present to the
public what's written in a private letter or mail.
That's the most important thing of all.
Only those who aren't capable of proper ethical behavior could possibly
miss
that!

Inger E




Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 25 jul 2005 02:06:26

(This is the last I will say on this.)

Peter Stewart wrote:

Drivel

An accurate description of much of the last month here.

- if your idea of "nettequite", or indeed "netiquette", requires
people who are maligned and misrepresented in flagrantly self-serving and
dishonest posts to keep quiet, . . .

Oh, yes. I forgot that _you_ are the victim here. Funny thing, so is
Richardson, so is Leo, so is . . . . (Yawn!)

then it is your own conventional thoughtlessness that
violates the rights of others.

Do you honestly think that calling someone the same name the 253rd time
carries any more weight than the 252nd or 251st? At some point, it just
becomes noise. You are all well beyond that point.

Richardson, Brandon and HInes are learning - slowly, as always, but from an
unusual number of correspondents lately that amy help to pick up their
mental pace - that they will not (NOT EVER) get away with their lies and
distortions.

And they say that you are learning that you will NOT EVER get away with
yours. To ensure this, they insist, they must continue to insult you,
and you them, and they you, and you them, and on, and On, and ON! It
might be different if something was being accomplished, but that time is
long past. After all, if your goal is to enlighten all of the readers
too stupid to see the other side's transgressions for what they are (I
mean, really, does anyone take Hines' posts seriously, other than you?),
driving those readers away or convincing them that you have an unhealthy
fixation on Richardson and Hines are not very effective ways of
educating them. For some time, the posts have been revealing much more
about their authors than their targets. It's not flattering. It is
like yelling at a lunatic that he most certainly IS NOT the Emperor
Napoleon - it only causes people to pity him and think you crass, at
best, but it accomplishes nothing and it certainly does not set any
record straight. (To argue with the lunatic for weeks, . . . well, that
speaks for itself.) If your approach is so effective in putting them in
their place, why do you think they keep goading people back into the
flame war?

You are not even talking about genealogy or research or qualifications
any more - you are now talking about who is and is not homosexual, for
God's sake. Who are you protecting from evil by hinting that Mr.
Richardson might be gay? Have none of you any shame? (Or is my failure
to appreciate the utter necessity of such a discussion another
manifestation of my conventional thoughtlessness?)

And don't say, "just don't read it if you don't like it". That is like
urinating in a public place and telling people they are free to hold
their noses if they don't like the resulting smell (not to mention the
spatter).

Peter Stewart

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jul 2005 04:54:42

Comments interspersed:

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:dc1dut$f8$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
(This is the last I will say on this.)

Peter Stewart wrote:

Drivel

An accurate description of much of the last month here.

- if your idea of "nettequite", or indeed "netiquette", requires
people who are maligned and misrepresented in flagrantly self-serving and
dishonest posts to keep quiet, . . .

Oh, yes. I forgot that _you_ are the victim here. Funny thing, so is
Richardson, so is Leo, so is . . . . (Yawn!)

Ah yes, the usual cop-out - having failed to take note of the beginnings of
a problem thread, you take up midway and decide in ignorance that everyone
is to blame for it.

Kindergarten teachers might take the line that right and wrong don't matter,
only peace and quiet. Adults might be expected to have more regard for truth
than for convenience.

then it is your own conventional thoughtlessness that
violates the rights of others.

Do you honestly think that calling someone the same name the 253rd time
carries any more weight than the 252nd or 251st? At some point, it just
becomes noise. You are all well beyond that point.

No, I don't think this and have not suggested anything of the kind. I do
however think that eventually Hines, Brandon (who shows signs of it now) and
even possibly Richardson will get fed up with constant humiliation and learn
to moderate their disruptive behaviours.

These alleged "names" are rarely the entire burden of any post, even from
them and certainly not from Leo, CED, Hans or myself. Again, you are lazily
tarring everyone with the same brush - very bad 'netiquette', or it ought to
be.

Richardson, Brandon and HInes are learning - slowly, as always, but from
an unusual number of correspondents lately that amy help to pick up their
mental pace - that they will not (NOT EVER) get away with their lies and
distortions.

And they say that you are learning that you will NOT EVER get away with
yours.

The difference that you must recognise - or kindly have the gumption to say
so if you don't - is in WHO tells the lies and makes the distortions. This
is a matter of evidence, not mere impressions.

To ensure this, they insist, they must continue to insult you, and you
them, and they you, and you them, and on, and On, and ON! It might be
different if something was being accomplished, but that time is long past.
After all, if your goal is to enlighten all of the readers too stupid to
see the other side's transgressions for what they are (I mean, really,
does anyone take Hines' posts seriously, other than you?), driving those
readers away or convincing them that you have an unhealthy fixation on
Richardson and Hines are not very effective ways of educating them.

Hines makes his posts BECAUSE he thinks someone takes him seriously - and
sure enough, along comes Richardson to confirm this; and vice versa.

For some time, the posts have been revealing much more about their authors
than their targets. It's not flattering. It is like yelling at a lunatic
that he most certainly IS NOT the Emperor Napoleon - it only causes people
to pity him and think you crass, at best, but it accomplishes nothing and
it certainly does not set any record straight. (To argue with the lunatic
for weeks, . . . well, that speaks for itself.) If your approach is so
effective in putting them in their place, why do you think they keep
goading people back into the flame war?

Because they can impress new readers with their imagined ascendancy in some
past argument, of course. Why do you think they come here in the first
place, except to gratify their warped egos? Does either of them go out of
their way to help people, much less without trupoet-blowing and savaging
innocent enquirers, as Leo and I have been doing here for years?

You are not even talking about genealogy or research or qualifications any
more - you are now talking about who is and is not homosexual, for God's
sake. Who are you protecting from evil by hinting that Mr. Richardson
might be gay? Have none of you any shame? (Or is my failure to
appreciate the utter necessity of such a discussion another manifestation
of my conventional thoughtlessness?)

Again, you have missed the point. Homosexuality is NOT the issue: HYPOCRISY
is. Richardson called me "prissy" and supported Hines in stating (not just
implying) that I should "come out of the closet". As it happens, I am not in
a closet, not gay - but implying that this would be discreditable to me if
it were true is certainly offensive and hurtful to some people. To have this
come from Richardson who is known to haunt gay bars despite his six
children, and Hines who is fixated on homosexuality and now even on the
anatomy of a dead royal male, is a flagrant example of the hypocrisy that
they insinuate into other discussions on other topics (including medieval
genealogy). Is this dishonesty on their part of NO interest to the
newsgroup? If you think so, say so - why wait till now when you add this to
offenses you are alleging against everyone indiscriminately?


And don't say, "just don't read it if you don't like it". That is like
urinating in a public place and telling people they are free to hold their
noses if they don't like the resulting smell (not to mention the spatter).

Specious - you don't have to open my messages in the first place to know
what is or is not in them, and this has no analogy to encountering a
nuisance while passing along a street that you are entitled to use.

Peter Stewart

Symon D'Vebre

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Symon D'Vebre » 25 jul 2005 05:30:01

Mr. Richardson,

I have lurked on this list for almost two years. Sadly, I had some regard for you during that time. Over the last few weeks, I have decided that I have no respect for you at all. The exchanges are somewhat entertaining for us lurking in the background. Yet, it is a simple matter to discern which posters are men of substance. I now perceive you to be one of Dimwit S. Hines and his ilk.

What reason could you possibly have for continually insulting and antagonizing Leo? He seems to be the most conscientious poster on this list. Unlike some on this list, I have no psychic powers. By my powers of logic and deduction, I conclude your badgering of Leo must stem from jealousy of his database, which he provides as a free service.

Unlike you, I do not claim perfection and freely admit that I may be in error regarding this conclusion. Possibly, you have only degenerated to the lowest level of humanity and become another member of DSH's band of misfits. You spring to his defense like a trusted friend and comrade-in-arms. I have even noticed that you have taken to signing your posts with initials in all caps. Is it admiration for your new role model that has led to this change?

I think you should take your emulation of Dimwit S. Hines a step further and add a tag in Latin. Might I suggest: Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem! You might like this next one even better: Magister Mundi sum! Why not use them both and become a full fledged member of his merry band of misfits? Both of these would be perfect under your new signature. This is doubly true when you ascend your tower of hypocrisy and cast down rebukes like a glorified net nanny.

No hypocritical wishes from me,

Symon D'Vebre

Oisthay ithway ishay ownway etarpay!

Upidstay isway asway upidstay oesday.

"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line. This same kind of stunt has
gotten you into trouble in the past.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"Leo" wrote:
< Your continuing this line is only showing up your inability to
comprehend.
< Perhaps I should repeat my suggestion, buy a pair of glasses, read
_all_
< messages, but then without a class in _comprehension English_ it
still can't
< sink in.


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

Stan Brown

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Stan Brown » 25 jul 2005 05:53:45

On 24 Jul 2005 00:37:07 -0700, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line. This same kind of stunt has
gotten you into trouble in the past.

It wasn't posted in a.t.r -- why bring your sordid little flamewar
into another group?

(No, don't answer; it was a rhetorical question.)


--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm

Odysseus

Re: Private is private. Public is Public. It's that simple.

Legg inn av Odysseus » 31 jul 2005 03:18:36

Stan Brown wrote:
On 24 Jul 2005 00:37:07 -0700, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

We know what you did, Leo. You posted a private e-mail message and
made it public. That was way out of line. This same kind of stunt has
gotten you into trouble in the past.

It wasn't posted in a.t.r -- why bring your sordid little flamewar
into another group?


Ditto s.h.m. That leaves one ...

(No, don't answer; it was a rhetorical question.)


Ditto. ;)

--
Odysseus

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»