time (and everyone elses's) in looking it up. Shouldn't you have marked your
message as OT? You again and again asked the obvious, the answer to your
question is in the message I, and you, have repeated.
If you read the message of Solitaire and allowed the information to sink in,
you would have realised that he was discusing where it was appropriate, in
my opinion he seemed to prefer it to be in public. An that is where it
responded. Any problems? Or do you have to get some advice from Turkey?
Let me try again, if you can come off your soapbox (do they have soapboxes
in bars?) give an answer to a more serious allegation _by you_ that I fought
with everyone while you were away. As it is your allegation, you should have
the proof. Easy. Answer it.
Without a justification by you, you are just showing what you are _a Bar
Room brawler_ apparently my description was more apt than what even I had
realised.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:41 AM
Subject: 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.
----- 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.