Fw: Public is Public. Private is Private. It's tjhat simpl

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo

Fw: Public is Public. Private is Private. It's tjhat simpl

Legg inn av Leo » 24 jul 2005 01:05:02

I am not claiming a faulty memory, just a lack of interest in wasting my
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.






D. Spencer Hines

Re: Public Is Public. Private Is Private. It's That Simple

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 jul 2005 02:19:02

Hell, Leo wants to fight even when Richardson is NOT gone.

He's like a fox terrier in heat -- nipping at ankles -- left and right.

Just give him a good swift kick DR -- and watch him run for the bushes.

DSH

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Fw: Public is Public. Private is Private. It's tjhat sim

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 24 jul 2005 03:20:58

My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo" wrote:
< I am not claiming a faulty memory, just a lack of interest in wasting
my
< time (and everyone elses's) in looking it up.

Yes, Leo, you did claim a faulty memory. You said you didn't remember
if you had posted a private e-mail from Solitaire or not. That appears
to have been a bald faced lie.

<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.

I've asked you more than once if you had posted a private e-mail from
Solitaire. You said you couldn't remember. If you did post a private
e-mail, it was out of line. You owe Solitaire an apology. You also
need to promise the newsgroup you won't do this again. Doing things
like this, Leo, always gets you in trouble.

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

< 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.

I have no soapbox. I just tell the truth as I see it. And, from what
I can see, you've lied to the whole newsgroup that you couldn't
remember if you had posted a private e-mail from Solitaire. That makes
your credibility about zero, Leo. Just about zero.

If you posted a private e-mail, just say so, Leo. Squirming around
about it just makes it worse for you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: Fw: Public is Public. Private is Private. It's tjhat sim

Legg inn av CED » 24 jul 2005 03:48:39

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR

To DR:

Whether the message was intended to be private or not is none of your
business. That message, public or private, has nothing to do with you.

I suspect that you want to pick a fight with Leo just so others in the
group won't take those ugly about you seriously. And you the father of
six children!

CED

"Leo" wrote:
I am not claiming a faulty memory, just a lack of interest in wasting
my
time (and everyone elses's) in looking it up.

Yes, Leo, you did claim a faulty memory. You said you didn't remember
if you had posted a private e-mail from Solitaire or not. That appears
to have been a bald faced lie.

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.

I've asked you more than once if you had posted a private e-mail from
Solitaire. You said you couldn't remember. If you did post a private
e-mail, it was out of line. You owe Solitaire an apology. You also
need to promise the newsgroup you won't do this again. Doing things
like this, Leo, always gets you in trouble.

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

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.

I have no soapbox. I just tell the truth as I see it. And, from what
I can see, you've lied to the whole newsgroup that you couldn't
remember if you had posted a private e-mail from Solitaire. That makes
your credibility about zero, Leo. Just about zero.

If you posted a private e-mail, just say so, Leo. Squirming around
about it just makes it worse for you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Fw: Public is Public. Private is Private. It's tjhat sim

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 24 jul 2005 08:24:23

Yes, CED, I'm the father of six children. How many children do you
have?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:

To DR:

I suspect that you want to pick a fight with Leo just so others in the
group won't take those ugly about you seriously. And you the father of
six children!

CED

Hans Vogels

Re: Fw: Public is Public. Private is Private. It's tjhat sim

Legg inn av Hans Vogels » 24 jul 2005 16:07:08

Dear Douglas,

I have to excuse for budding in on your correspondence with Leo. But
since you set a precedent I thought that it would be proper if I put
in a few words myself.

I see that you put on a show on what according to you is proper or
otherwise not done. I would suggest that you firstly give a good
example yourself. Others will undoubtly follow the light and shining
path. If you don't know what I mean I will gladly refresh your memory.
So don't bother Leo with hypocritical remarks. Your own record is all
but clean.

Furthermore it is astonishing that you take up the cause for S. If
someone should apologise it should be S. Barging in all foul-mouthed
is not exactly a show of good manners. Regarding Leo, your actions
prove you to be a person out to beat with anything you can get hold
of. The remarks of S in his mails are quite clear, even to a
foreigner. So he gets what he deserves.

With regards,
Hans Vogels


"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message news:<1122171658.937151.80820@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo" wrote:
I am not claiming a faulty memory, just a lack of interest in wasting
my
time (and everyone elses's) in looking it up.

Yes, Leo, you did claim a faulty memory. You said you didn't remember
if you had posted a private e-mail from Solitaire or not. That appears
to have been a bald faced lie.

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.

I've asked you more than once if you had posted a private e-mail from
Solitaire. You said you couldn't remember. If you did post a private
e-mail, it was out of line. You owe Solitaire an apology. You also
need to promise the newsgroup you won't do this again. Doing things
like this, Leo, always gets you in trouble.

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

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.

I have no soapbox. I just tell the truth as I see it. And, from what
I can see, you've lied to the whole newsgroup that you couldn't
remember if you had posted a private e-mail from Solitaire. That makes
your credibility about zero, Leo. Just about zero.

If you posted a private e-mail, just say so, Leo. Squirming around
about it just makes it worse for you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»