Uriah N. Owen Comments
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Uriah N. Owen Comments
Dear Newsgroup ~
I received this e-mail a week ago from Uriah Owen. He asked me to post
it here on the newsgroup. Uriah's comments speak for themselves, not
for anyone else.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Dear Mr. Richardson,
I wish to thank you for posting my response to Stewart's accusation
that you are Uriah Owen. As I am visiting family here in America, I can
not compromise their internet access, so I will not be able to post on
my own until I return home and re-establish a secure connection. (When
I first posted to this forum, I was inundated with e-mails, some
informative and others abusive, to say the least. The service provider
also alerted me that there were inquiries as to my personal
information, so I terminated that account).
The attempts to uncover my identity persists to this day, as can be
seen by the various phishing attempts to extract a confession from you.
At last, I see that Stewart realises that you are not Uriah (see his
post dated Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:53:29 GMT, Subject: Re: Stewart's & Van
De Pas's Unfounded Charges). I admire your fortitude in withstanding
the attacks of the cowan.
Before I put my questions to Stewart, let me add my compliments on your
book "Plantagenet Ancestry". Your craftsmanship is evident throughout,
as not only is it compiled for the expert but for relative novices such
as myself. I'm sure that the copious footnotes and extensive
bibliography will provide many hours of fruitful discovery, as I
explore the connections to my genealogical lines (Joshua Owen, pg.559,
amongst others) contained therein.
As for Stewart, your attempts to prove your literary prowess only
demonstrate the opposite. To wit:
You quote a passage in a very early edition of "Hamlet" as evidence of
the breadth of your literary knowledge (posted Tues,Jul 26 2005 1:12
am, subject: "Re: Uriah Heep -- In David Copperfield". You also state
in your post on the same subject, (dated 25 Jul 2005 21:56:11 -0700),
the following: "There are too many great works by contemporaries of
Dickens for me to miss anything by avoiding him. If ever I wish to read
a 19th-century pantomime novel with some real pay-off as social
commentary, Balzac or Gogol will do me fine. I have read more than four
books by Dickens, unbidden, with enough displeasure...."
Please elaborate on how a person with your literary acumen fails to
realise that Gogol was heavily influenced by Dickens, in his detail of
characterisation, humour and background. It's obvious that you have
never truly investigated Gogol. Perhaps it's a fascination with the
titles of Gogol's books "Diary of a Madman" and "Dead Souls"!
Further, as you state in your post (Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:01:27 GMT, same
subject: that "For once you are right, Hines, in small part - I have
never read 'David Copperfield' and have an allergy to Dickens that
ensures I never will".
As referenced in above subject post of 25th July you state: "I have
read more than four books by Dickens, unbidden". Please tell this forum
how a person of your literary discernment can take "more than four
books" to develop an allergy to the author?
Again, in response to my post, you mock my use of language with the
mixed metaphor: "The language sounds as convincing as a Bronx actor
trying out a Cockney accent". ("Re: Uriah B. Owen's response to Peter
Stewart" dated Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:57:35 GMT).
What metaphorical anarchy from someone who criticises others! Totally
unexpected, but explainable now that it has been revealed that you
dropped out of Qxford, a charge that you have not denied.
Equally puzzling is your appending [sic] to the word "bumf" in your
post "Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart" dated Fri, 22 Jul
2005 08:01:09 GMT. - More characteristic of an American fellow who
posts on this forum, not someone as familiar as you with common English
idioms.
To summarise, - you lot should stop playing silly buggers!
Cheers, Uriah
P.S. Would you please post this in its entirety.
I received this e-mail a week ago from Uriah Owen. He asked me to post
it here on the newsgroup. Uriah's comments speak for themselves, not
for anyone else.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Dear Mr. Richardson,
I wish to thank you for posting my response to Stewart's accusation
that you are Uriah Owen. As I am visiting family here in America, I can
not compromise their internet access, so I will not be able to post on
my own until I return home and re-establish a secure connection. (When
I first posted to this forum, I was inundated with e-mails, some
informative and others abusive, to say the least. The service provider
also alerted me that there were inquiries as to my personal
information, so I terminated that account).
The attempts to uncover my identity persists to this day, as can be
seen by the various phishing attempts to extract a confession from you.
At last, I see that Stewart realises that you are not Uriah (see his
post dated Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:53:29 GMT, Subject: Re: Stewart's & Van
De Pas's Unfounded Charges). I admire your fortitude in withstanding
the attacks of the cowan.
Before I put my questions to Stewart, let me add my compliments on your
book "Plantagenet Ancestry". Your craftsmanship is evident throughout,
as not only is it compiled for the expert but for relative novices such
as myself. I'm sure that the copious footnotes and extensive
bibliography will provide many hours of fruitful discovery, as I
explore the connections to my genealogical lines (Joshua Owen, pg.559,
amongst others) contained therein.
As for Stewart, your attempts to prove your literary prowess only
demonstrate the opposite. To wit:
You quote a passage in a very early edition of "Hamlet" as evidence of
the breadth of your literary knowledge (posted Tues,Jul 26 2005 1:12
am, subject: "Re: Uriah Heep -- In David Copperfield". You also state
in your post on the same subject, (dated 25 Jul 2005 21:56:11 -0700),
the following: "There are too many great works by contemporaries of
Dickens for me to miss anything by avoiding him. If ever I wish to read
a 19th-century pantomime novel with some real pay-off as social
commentary, Balzac or Gogol will do me fine. I have read more than four
books by Dickens, unbidden, with enough displeasure...."
Please elaborate on how a person with your literary acumen fails to
realise that Gogol was heavily influenced by Dickens, in his detail of
characterisation, humour and background. It's obvious that you have
never truly investigated Gogol. Perhaps it's a fascination with the
titles of Gogol's books "Diary of a Madman" and "Dead Souls"!
Further, as you state in your post (Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:01:27 GMT, same
subject: that "For once you are right, Hines, in small part - I have
never read 'David Copperfield' and have an allergy to Dickens that
ensures I never will".
As referenced in above subject post of 25th July you state: "I have
read more than four books by Dickens, unbidden". Please tell this forum
how a person of your literary discernment can take "more than four
books" to develop an allergy to the author?
Again, in response to my post, you mock my use of language with the
mixed metaphor: "The language sounds as convincing as a Bronx actor
trying out a Cockney accent". ("Re: Uriah B. Owen's response to Peter
Stewart" dated Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:57:35 GMT).
What metaphorical anarchy from someone who criticises others! Totally
unexpected, but explainable now that it has been revealed that you
dropped out of Qxford, a charge that you have not denied.
Equally puzzling is your appending [sic] to the word "bumf" in your
post "Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart" dated Fri, 22 Jul
2005 08:01:09 GMT. - More characteristic of an American fellow who
posts on this forum, not someone as familiar as you with common English
idioms.
To summarise, - you lot should stop playing silly buggers!
Cheers, Uriah
P.S. Would you please post this in its entirety.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
[not this again (groan)]
If you have Uriah contact me, I can indicate to him some alternatives
that will enable him to post directly, without the necessity of using
you as an intermediary. That way, Uriah can truly speak for himself,
and you will not have to be drawn into the issue.
By the way, have you admonished Mr. Owen for publicly posting a
complaint about another participant, rather than sending it by email (or
did his having sent it by email to you, and then you publicly posting it
somehow absolve both of you of having to live by the standard you have
been professing to others over the past few weeks that such material
shouldn't be posted)?
Dear Newsgroup ~
I received this e-mail a week ago from Uriah Owen. He asked me to post
it here on the newsgroup.
[not this again (groan)]
Uriah's comments speak for themselves, not
for anyone else.
If you have Uriah contact me, I can indicate to him some alternatives
that will enable him to post directly, without the necessity of using
you as an intermediary. That way, Uriah can truly speak for himself,
and you will not have to be drawn into the issue.
By the way, have you admonished Mr. Owen for publicly posting a
complaint about another participant, rather than sending it by email (or
did his having sent it by email to you, and then you publicly posting it
somehow absolve both of you of having to live by the standard you have
been professing to others over the past few weeks that such material
shouldn't be posted)?
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Dear Todd ~
Your comments are well made. I'll request that Mr. Owen contact you
directly. As I stated earlier today, Mr. Owen's comments speak for
themselves. I have no involvement in what Mr. Owen writes, anymore
than I did with your response to his e-mail. I seldom hear from Mr.
Owen, although I understand he reads the newsgroup from time to time.
As for your second comment, Mr. Owen is unable to contact Mr. Stewart
directly, as Mr. Stewart posts under a fake name and has a fake e-mail
address. Surely you knew this already. Mr. Stewart has involved all
of us in a game of deception and lies.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Your comments are well made. I'll request that Mr. Owen contact you
directly. As I stated earlier today, Mr. Owen's comments speak for
themselves. I have no involvement in what Mr. Owen writes, anymore
than I did with your response to his e-mail. I seldom hear from Mr.
Owen, although I understand he reads the newsgroup from time to time.
As for your second comment, Mr. Owen is unable to contact Mr. Stewart
directly, as Mr. Stewart posts under a fake name and has a fake e-mail
address. Surely you knew this already. Mr. Stewart has involved all
of us in a game of deception and lies.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
I received this e-mail a week ago from Uriah Owen. He asked me to post
it here on the newsgroup.
[not this again (groan)]
Uriah's comments speak for themselves, not
for anyone else.
If you have Uriah contact me, I can indicate to him some alternatives
that will enable him to post directly, without the necessity of using
you as an intermediary. That way, Uriah can truly speak for himself,
and you will not have to be drawn into the issue.
By the way, have you admonished Mr. Owen for publicly posting a
complaint about another participant, rather than sending it by email (or
did his having sent it by email to you, and then you publicly posting it
somehow absolve both of you of having to live by the standard you have
been professing to others over the past few weeks that such material
shouldn't be posted)?
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Does the appropriateness of a non-genealogical post vary depending on
the difficulty of alternative lines of communication, or is such
non-genealogical material inappropriate by its very nature?
I thought it was at the behest of Mr. Owen, and not Mr. Stewart, that
you have become involved in (initiated, in fact) this thread.
taf
As for your second comment, Mr. Owen is unable to contact Mr. Stewart
directly, as Mr. Stewart posts under a fake name and has a fake e-mail
address. Surely you knew this already.
Does the appropriateness of a non-genealogical post vary depending on
the difficulty of alternative lines of communication, or is such
non-genealogical material inappropriate by its very nature?
Mr. Stewart has involved all
of us in a game of deception and lies.
I thought it was at the behest of Mr. Owen, and not Mr. Stewart, that
you have become involved in (initiated, in fact) this thread.
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Uriah N. Owen's comments make a Great Deal of Sense.
We should be hearing more from him -- he raises the standards of debate
and probity in this newsgroup.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
We should be hearing more from him -- he raises the standards of debate
and probity in this newsgroup.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Golly, quite apart from the crazy circumstances he has made up, Uriah the
Turk is every bit as silly as Richardson in other ways too - I wonder
why....
Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123691318.735185.30280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The newsgroup was waiting for Richardson to ppost more reviews of the book,
but no-one expected his own....
What a farrago of absurdity: the quotation from the First Quarto of Hamlet
was nothing to do with evidencing my "breadth of knowledge", but was readily
available information posted only to establish that Hines was not mistaken
in giving "petar" instead of "petard". The literary prowess of Gogol can't
make any influence upon him into his equal - you may as weel say that the
success of a student should mean that the teacher has earned the same
result, so that dfor instance all Nobel Prizes (for literature or in any
scientific field) should be shared by all the winner's mentors.
A very Richardsonian false conclusion: I disliked the first novel, but it
was necessary to read more because I was a student of literature at the
time, bound by the required reading in a curriculum that I did not set.
This is a simile, not a metaphor, and it isn't mixed anyway but all about
accents. The only metaphorical aspect is in using accents for prose style,
but not in the comparison itself.
What are you ranting about? "Appending" is your own word, and the one you
were straining for in the earlier post is "bumpf", a British colloquialism
from the Second World War that is all but obsolete today. It refers to
useless guidelines printed in instruction manuals, and is not the same as
"blurb" or whatever you meant.
Happily I am now going on holiday and will take no further part in this
thread or read any more of Uriah Richarson's fried air until I return.
Peter Stewart
Turk is every bit as silly as Richardson in other ways too - I wonder
why....
Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123691318.735185.30280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
I received this e-mail a week ago from Uriah Owen. He asked me to post
it here on the newsgroup. Uriah's comments speak for themselves, not
for anyone else.
<snip>
Before I put my questions to Stewart, let me add my compliments on your
book "Plantagenet Ancestry". Your craftsmanship is evident throughout,
as not only is it compiled for the expert but for relative novices such
as myself. I'm sure that the copious footnotes and extensive
bibliography will provide many hours of fruitful discovery, as I
explore the connections to my genealogical lines (Joshua Owen, pg.559,
amongst others) contained therein.
The newsgroup was waiting for Richardson to ppost more reviews of the book,
but no-one expected his own....
As for Stewart, your attempts to prove your literary prowess only
demonstrate the opposite. To wit:
You quote a passage in a very early edition of "Hamlet" as evidence of
the breadth of your literary knowledge (posted Tues,Jul 26 2005 1:12
am, subject: "Re: Uriah Heep -- In David Copperfield". You also state
in your post on the same subject, (dated 25 Jul 2005 21:56:11 -0700),
the following: "There are too many great works by contemporaries of
Dickens for me to miss anything by avoiding him. If ever I wish to read
a 19th-century pantomime novel with some real pay-off as social
commentary, Balzac or Gogol will do me fine. I have read more than four
books by Dickens, unbidden, with enough displeasure...."
Please elaborate on how a person with your literary acumen fails to
realise that Gogol was heavily influenced by Dickens, in his detail of
characterisation, humour and background. It's obvious that you have
never truly investigated Gogol. Perhaps it's a fascination with the
titles of Gogol's books "Diary of a Madman" and "Dead Souls"!
What a farrago of absurdity: the quotation from the First Quarto of Hamlet
was nothing to do with evidencing my "breadth of knowledge", but was readily
available information posted only to establish that Hines was not mistaken
in giving "petar" instead of "petard". The literary prowess of Gogol can't
make any influence upon him into his equal - you may as weel say that the
success of a student should mean that the teacher has earned the same
result, so that dfor instance all Nobel Prizes (for literature or in any
scientific field) should be shared by all the winner's mentors.
Further, as you state in your post (Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:01:27 GMT, same
subject: that "For once you are right, Hines, in small part - I have
never read 'David Copperfield' and have an allergy to Dickens that
ensures I never will".
As referenced in above subject post of 25th July you state: "I have
read more than four books by Dickens, unbidden". Please tell this forum
how a person of your literary discernment can take "more than four
books" to develop an allergy to the author?
A very Richardsonian false conclusion: I disliked the first novel, but it
was necessary to read more because I was a student of literature at the
time, bound by the required reading in a curriculum that I did not set.
Again, in response to my post, you mock my use of language with the
mixed metaphor: "The language sounds as convincing as a Bronx actor
trying out a Cockney accent". ("Re: Uriah B. Owen's response to Peter
Stewart" dated Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:57:35 GMT).
What metaphorical anarchy from someone who criticises others! Totally
unexpected, but explainable now that it has been revealed that you
dropped out of Qxford, a charge that you have not denied.
This is a simile, not a metaphor, and it isn't mixed anyway but all about
accents. The only metaphorical aspect is in using accents for prose style,
but not in the comparison itself.
Equally puzzling is your appending [sic] to the word "bumf" in your
post "Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart" dated Fri, 22 Jul
2005 08:01:09 GMT. - More characteristic of an American fellow who
posts on this forum, not someone as familiar as you with common English
idioms.
What are you ranting about? "Appending" is your own word, and the one you
were straining for in the earlier post is "bumpf", a British colloquialism
from the Second World War that is all but obsolete today. It refers to
useless guidelines printed in instruction manuals, and is not the same as
"blurb" or whatever you meant.
Happily I am now going on holiday and will take no further part in this
thread or read any more of Uriah Richarson's fried air until I return.
Peter Stewart
To summarise, - you lot should stop playing silly buggers!
Cheers, Uriah
P.S. Would you please post this in its entirety.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
""fairthorne"" <fairthorne@breathe.com> wrote in message
news:001b01c59e03$02916260$0600000a@oemcomputer...
I hope you enjoyed the cricket at Edgbaston, Simon - but not Old Trafford.
By "all but" obsolete I meant that the usage is still current, only not
common. I wonder how many of your daughter's age-group would know the term
( I can't recall hearing a young person use it).
All power to Freddie Flintoff, only not yet....
Peter Stewart
news:001b01c59e03$02916260$0600000a@oemcomputer...
"bumpf", a British colloquialism
from the Second World War that is all but obsolete today.
sorry to disagree Peter, it's still in use. Not just by the older
generation, asked my daughter and she recognised it immediately
Enjoy your break
I hope you enjoyed the cricket at Edgbaston, Simon - but not Old Trafford.
By "all but" obsolete I meant that the usage is still current, only not
common. I wonder how many of your daughter's age-group would know the term
( I can't recall hearing a young person use it).
All power to Freddie Flintoff, only not yet....
Peter Stewart
-
fairthorne
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
"bumpf", a British colloquialism
from the Second World War that is all but obsolete today.
sorry to disagree Peter, it's still in use. Not just by the older
generation, asked my daughter and she recognised it immediately
Enjoy your break
cheers
Simon
-
CED
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
It seems that Uriah could well inform DR (who does not want us to use
his surname) as to why others use pen names.
The use of aliases of one form or another is apparently quite common.
When I subscribed originally, Google Groups asked me for a 'nickname.'
I gave Google a nickname which I have used. Any compliants about my
use of my Google nickname should be addressed to Google.
Let us hear no more complaints from DR about pen names.
Regarding the identity of Uriah: I first thought it was DR; but now I
doubt it. If DR could write as well as Uriah does, DR should drop the
name he normally uses and let Uriah do his writing.
CED
Dear Newsgroup ~
I received this e-mail a week ago from Uriah Owen. He asked me to post
it here on the newsgroup. Uriah's comments speak for themselves, not
for anyone else.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Dear Mr. Richardson,
I wish to thank you for posting my response to Stewart's accusation
that you are Uriah Owen. As I am visiting family here in America, I can
not compromise their internet access, so I will not be able to post on
my own until I return home and re-establish a secure connection. (When
I first posted to this forum, I was inundated with e-mails, some
informative and others abusive, to say the least. The service provider
also alerted me that there were inquiries as to my personal
information, so I terminated that account).
To the Newsgroup:
It seems that Uriah could well inform DR (who does not want us to use
his surname) as to why others use pen names.
The use of aliases of one form or another is apparently quite common.
When I subscribed originally, Google Groups asked me for a 'nickname.'
I gave Google a nickname which I have used. Any compliants about my
use of my Google nickname should be addressed to Google.
Let us hear no more complaints from DR about pen names.
Regarding the identity of Uriah: I first thought it was DR; but now I
doubt it. If DR could write as well as Uriah does, DR should drop the
name he normally uses and let Uriah do his writing.
CED
The attempts to uncover my identity persists to this day, as can be
seen by the various phishing attempts to extract a confession from you.
At last, I see that Stewart realises that you are not Uriah (see his
post dated Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:53:29 GMT, Subject: Re: Stewart's & Van
De Pas's Unfounded Charges). I admire your fortitude in withstanding
the attacks of the cowan.
snip
Cheers, Uriah
P.S. Would you please post this in its entirety.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Now you need to convince the ignorant Peter Stewart of that -- and taf.
DSH
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1123793891.245659.268980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Regarding the identity of Uriah: I first thought it was DR; but now I
| doubt it. If DR could write as well as Uriah does, DR should drop the
| name he normally uses and let Uriah do his writing.
DSH
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1123793891.245659.268980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Regarding the identity of Uriah: I first thought it was DR; but now I
| doubt it. If DR could write as well as Uriah does, DR should drop the
| name he normally uses and let Uriah do his writing.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
The correct use of a pen name
My comments are interspersed below. DR
CED wrote:
I've cordially requested that you call me Douglas, not DR. I've also
asked that you use your real first name, but you have refused. Please
get your facts straight.
I have no objections to pen names, if the person is civil and cordial.
If a person is abusive, the newsgroup has a right to know the identity
of the person making the wild accusations about another poster.
When you attack someone hiding behind a fake identity, it makes you
look like a coward hiding behind a bush. No one likes cowards. Except
another coward.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
It seems that Uriah could well inform DR (who does not want us to use
his surname) as to why others use pen names.
I've cordially requested that you call me Douglas, not DR. I've also
asked that you use your real first name, but you have refused. Please
get your facts straight.
The use of aliases of one form or another is apparently quite common.
When I subscribed originally, Google Groups asked me for a 'nickname.'
I gave Google a nickname which I have used. Any compliants about my
use of my Google nickname should be addressed to Google.
Let us hear no more complaints from DR about pen names.
I have no objections to pen names, if the person is civil and cordial.
If a person is abusive, the newsgroup has a right to know the identity
of the person making the wild accusations about another poster.
When you attack someone hiding behind a fake identity, it makes you
look like a coward hiding behind a bush. No one likes cowards. Except
another coward.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: The correct use of a pen name
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Please note that I am not addressing DR (He was the first to use his
initials and I use them to refer to him. See above. If you check the
archives, you will find that I addressed Mr. Richardson as DR only
after he himself used his initials.)
DR has requested that I address him by his given name. I have
explained that I use given names for friends and other persons who are
not unfriendly. DR is not my friend; and he has been most unfriendly.
To address him as a friend would be hypocritical(I consider
hypocritical statements to be worst form of lying). It could be that
he has no qualms about being hypocritical; but I do. So, in the
future, as has been the case recently, I shall not address him. But
that will not prevent my pointing out his errors.
The comments interspersed below are address to the group and not to any
particular person.
CED
Which or what of my statements of fact need to be straightened? If DR
has a specific statement made by me which he believes to be in error,
he should point it out to the whole group; and if, indeed, I was in
error, I shall admit it and, if appropriate, apologize. (I say 'if
appropriate' because inappropriate apologies are not sincere and are
themselves hypocritical.)
I have been civil; but make no pretense of being cordial Again, DR does
not know the proper words to use. Cordial means "warm and affectionate;
heartfelt, profound." Can anybody of this group imagine a statement by
or to DR which is warm, or affectionate, or heartfelt, or profound? As
is often the case, DR used a word without knowing its meaning. This is
just another example of his weakness with language. Now I am pointing
that fact out to the group. Doing so, is not abusive; nor is a
personal attack. A person making claims about publishing a book for
English speaking people, should know the meaning to the words he uses.
I have pointed out DR's errors. However, I have not used abusive
language:
(1) I did point out that DR misused the term 'vernacular'and set out
examples of his misuse. I did not use abusive language in doing so.
It must have done some good. DR must have learned from the experience;
for he has not misused 'vernacular' since.
(2) I have not called his genealogy 'shoddy.' I purposely avoided doing
so because I make no claim to being a genealogist; however, others,
good genealogists, have called is work shoddy; but not I. I did say
that I would not delve into his work in genealogy.
(3) I have pointed out that DR does not understand medieval documents.
I did so in two cases just this past week. I did not use abusive
language. If DR would like to discuss those two documents, let him
post the documents. (In the case of Alice, third wife of Robert
FitzWalter, a careful examination of the circumstances might reveal
that Alice was indeed not of child bearing age when the conveyances
were made. But, that's for another day.)
It could be that DR believes that pointing out his errors is abusive.
Well, again, he does not know the definition of the word 'abuse.'
Except
My comments are interspersed below. DR
To the Newsgroup:
Please note that I am not addressing DR (He was the first to use his
initials and I use them to refer to him. See above. If you check the
archives, you will find that I addressed Mr. Richardson as DR only
after he himself used his initials.)
DR has requested that I address him by his given name. I have
explained that I use given names for friends and other persons who are
not unfriendly. DR is not my friend; and he has been most unfriendly.
To address him as a friend would be hypocritical(I consider
hypocritical statements to be worst form of lying). It could be that
he has no qualms about being hypocritical; but I do. So, in the
future, as has been the case recently, I shall not address him. But
that will not prevent my pointing out his errors.
The comments interspersed below are address to the group and not to any
particular person.
CED
CED wrote:
It seems that Uriah could well inform DR (who does not want us to use
his surname) as to why others use pen names.
I've cordially requested that you call me Douglas, not DR. I've also
asked that you use your real first name, but you have refused. Please
get your facts straight.
Which or what of my statements of fact need to be straightened? If DR
has a specific statement made by me which he believes to be in error,
he should point it out to the whole group; and if, indeed, I was in
error, I shall admit it and, if appropriate, apologize. (I say 'if
appropriate' because inappropriate apologies are not sincere and are
themselves hypocritical.)
The use of aliases of one form or another is apparently quite common.
When I subscribed originally, Google Groups asked me for a 'nickname.'
I gave Google a nickname which I have used. Any compliants about my
use of my Google nickname should be addressed to Google.
Let us hear no more complaints from DR about pen names.
I have no objections to pen names, if the person is civil and cordial.
I have been civil; but make no pretense of being cordial Again, DR does
not know the proper words to use. Cordial means "warm and affectionate;
heartfelt, profound." Can anybody of this group imagine a statement by
or to DR which is warm, or affectionate, or heartfelt, or profound? As
is often the case, DR used a word without knowing its meaning. This is
just another example of his weakness with language. Now I am pointing
that fact out to the group. Doing so, is not abusive; nor is a
personal attack. A person making claims about publishing a book for
English speaking people, should know the meaning to the words he uses.
If a person is abusive, the newsgroup has a right to know the identity
of the person making the wild accusations about another poster.
When you attack someone hiding behind a fake identity, it makes you
look like a coward hiding behind a bush. No one likes cowards.
I have pointed out DR's errors. However, I have not used abusive
language:
(1) I did point out that DR misused the term 'vernacular'and set out
examples of his misuse. I did not use abusive language in doing so.
It must have done some good. DR must have learned from the experience;
for he has not misused 'vernacular' since.
(2) I have not called his genealogy 'shoddy.' I purposely avoided doing
so because I make no claim to being a genealogist; however, others,
good genealogists, have called is work shoddy; but not I. I did say
that I would not delve into his work in genealogy.
(3) I have pointed out that DR does not understand medieval documents.
I did so in two cases just this past week. I did not use abusive
language. If DR would like to discuss those two documents, let him
post the documents. (In the case of Alice, third wife of Robert
FitzWalter, a careful examination of the circumstances might reveal
that Alice was indeed not of child bearing age when the conveyances
were made. But, that's for another day.)
It could be that DR believes that pointing out his errors is abusive.
Well, again, he does not know the definition of the word 'abuse.'
Except
another coward.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
John Brandon
Re: The correct use of a pen name
If you check thearchives, you will find that I addressed Mr. Richardson as DR only after he himself used his initials.)
No one is going to bother about that.
To address him as a friend would be hypocritical (I consider hypocritical statements to be worst form of lying). It could be that he has no qualms about being hypocritical; but I do. So, in the future, as has been the case recently, I shall not address him.
Well, how pious and principled of you! Maybe you can get yourself
elected the next Pope, Ceeddie ....
-
Uriah N. Owen
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Peter Stewart wrote:
<snip>
Comments interspersed:
What? You would have this forum believe that someone with your
credentials (your close colleague Rosie Bevan has stated that you are
an"admired literary critic in Australia") can not distinguish between
my "prose style" and that of Mr. Richardson? Especially when others of
more modest acclaim can! - See: "CED", in his post of 11 Aug 2005
13:58:11 -0700 "Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments".
I withdraw that remark. It's painfully obvious from your comments that
you exhibit little "breadth of knowledge" (See remarks below).
<snip>
<snip>
What unoriginative codswallop! Of course Gogol's "literary prowess" has
nothing to do with influence upon another author. The question remains,
how could you, a self professed "student of literature", fail to
realise Dicken's influence upon Gogol?
<snip>
Rubbish! If it was "necessary to read more" because it was required
reading bound by a curriculum, HOW could it be "unbidden"?
<snip>
What a load of codswallop! Your comparison fails to preserve
parallelism between things compared. Actors are trained to emulate
accents.
What unmittigated rubbish! Your reply reflects a pathetic attempt to
explain your poor sentence construction, inexcusable for someone who is
an "admired literary critic in Australia".
Anyone with your experience and even a modicum of public schooling in
the British system would recognise that 'bumf' is the more common slang
for all the printed dross whose only conceivable use was to be torn up,
hung up on a nail in the privy and used as toilet paper. (See Barrère
and Leland's Dictionary of Slang , 1889).
If you had consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, rather than the
web, you would have seen that I meant the classical Latin meaning
anitergium!
<snip>
To summarise, it is patently obvious that this response was written by
someone who was not a literary critic, not schooled in the British
public school system, and from the above exhibition of linguistic
inaccuracy, I daresay from someone posing as Peter Stewart.
Cheers, Uriah
Golly,
<snip>
Comments interspersed:
The newsgroup was waiting for Richardson to ppost more reviews of the book,
but no-one expected his own....
What? You would have this forum believe that someone with your
credentials (your close colleague Rosie Bevan has stated that you are
an"admired literary critic in Australia") can not distinguish between
my "prose style" and that of Mr. Richardson? Especially when others of
more modest acclaim can! - See: "CED", in his post of 11 Aug 2005
13:58:11 -0700 "Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments".
As for Stewart, your attempts to prove your literary prowess only
demonstrate the opposite. To wit:
I withdraw that remark. It's painfully obvious from your comments that
you exhibit little "breadth of knowledge" (See remarks below).
<snip>
If ever I wish to read
a 19th-century pantomime novel with some real pay-off as social
commentary, Balzac or Gogol will do me fine. I have read more > > than four
books by Dickens, unbidden, with enough displeasure...."
Please elaborate on how a person with your literary acumen fails to
realise that Gogol was heavily influenced by Dickens, in his detail of
characterisation, humour and background. It's obvious that you have
never truly investigated Gogol.
<snip>
The literary prowess of Gogol can't
make any influence upon him into his equal - you may as weel say that the
success of a student should mean that the teacher has earned the same
result, so that dfor instance all Nobel Prizes (for literature or in any
scientific field) should be shared by all the winner's mentors.
What unoriginative codswallop! Of course Gogol's "literary prowess" has
nothing to do with influence upon another author. The question remains,
how could you, a self professed "student of literature", fail to
realise Dicken's influence upon Gogol?
<snip>
As referenced in above subject post of 25th July you state: "I have
read more than four books by Dickens, unbidden". Please tell this forum
how a person of your literary discernment can take "more than four
books" to develop an allergy to the author?
A very Richardsonian false conclusion: I disliked the first novel, but it
was necessary to read more because I was a student of literature at the
time, bound by the required reading in a curriculum that I did not set.
Rubbish! If it was "necessary to read more" because it was required
reading bound by a curriculum, HOW could it be "unbidden"?
<snip>
What metaphorical anarchy from someone who criticises others! Totally
unexpected, but explainable now that it has been revealed that you
dropped out of Qxford, a charge that you have not denied.
This is a simile, not a metaphor, and it isn't mixed anyway but all about accents.
What a load of codswallop! Your comparison fails to preserve
parallelism between things compared. Actors are trained to emulate
accents.
The only metaphorical aspect is in using accents for prose style,
but not in the comparison itself.
What unmittigated rubbish! Your reply reflects a pathetic attempt to
explain your poor sentence construction, inexcusable for someone who is
an "admired literary critic in Australia".
Equally puzzling is your appending [sic] to the word "bumf" in your
post "Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart" dated Fri, 22 Jul
2005 08:01:09 GMT. - More characteristic of an American fellow who
posts on this forum, not someone as familiar as you with common
English idioms.
What are you ranting about? "Appending" is your own word, and the one you
were straining for in the earlier post is "bumpf", a British colloquialism
from the Second World War that is all but obsolete today. It refers to
useless guidelines printed in instruction manuals,
Anyone with your experience and even a modicum of public schooling in
the British system would recognise that 'bumf' is the more common slang
for all the printed dross whose only conceivable use was to be torn up,
hung up on a nail in the privy and used as toilet paper. (See Barrère
and Leland's Dictionary of Slang , 1889).
and is not the same as "blurb" or whatever you meant.
If you had consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, rather than the
web, you would have seen that I meant the classical Latin meaning
anitergium!
<snip>
To summarise, it is patently obvious that this response was written by
someone who was not a literary critic, not schooled in the British
public school system, and from the above exhibition of linguistic
inaccuracy, I daresay from someone posing as Peter Stewart.
Cheers, Uriah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Richardson is trying to outdo himself in imbecility.
I note "Uriah N. Owen" finally posts, but does so with the same highly
unusual settings as Richardson him, that prevent chevrons appearing at the
start of each line in replies. Rum. I have manually corrected this
inconsiderate, uncollegial, and very telling lapse on Uriah Richardson's
part.
Comments interspersed:
"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1124942008.568266.40700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
You have just provided unmistakable evidence that you ARE Uriah N. Owen,
after several weeks of thinking about it. What others may think is not
binding on me.
"Unoriginative"? A Richardson coinage if ever there was one. And only
Richardson could be obtuse enough not to realise that his exceedingly dumb
point has been blown out of the water already. No-one has to like reading
every other writer who may have influenced one that is enjoyable or
rewarding to read, nor consider each and every precursor the equal of a
successor in any field. You are repeating utter rot.
Simple - the syllabus had more than than the three extra books I read, and
more unpalatable Victorian authors as well as Dickens, to choose from. I was
not bidden to select the ones I did read. There were many others I would not
have read even if required.
It's not a "charge" to "deny" - there is no offense in leaving a university
without taking a degree. I have freely acknowledged this in my case - I
don't have a degree from Oxford or anywhere else. I don't want one.
Goodness, when were you last in a Broadway theatre to observe how badly
Bronx actors can mangle Cockney (and other) accents?
You are ranting - my sentence is perfectly accurate and you can't refute it
by misspelled assertions of your own ignorance.
<snip>
Um, "bumf" is not even correct English, much less having anything to do with
"classical Latin".
Who now has said I was "schooled n the British public school system"? I
wasn't.
And my posts were written by the person who, for any purpose Uriah
Richardson can have and for all he can possibly know, is named Peter
Stewart.
Peter Stewart
I note "Uriah N. Owen" finally posts, but does so with the same highly
unusual settings as Richardson him, that prevent chevrons appearing at the
start of each line in replies. Rum. I have manually corrected this
inconsiderate, uncollegial, and very telling lapse on Uriah Richardson's
part.
Comments interspersed:
"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1124942008.568266.40700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
<snip>
Comments interspersed:
The newsgroup was waiting for Richardson to ppost more reviews of the
book,
but no-one expected his own....
What? You would have this forum believe that someone with your
credentials (your close colleague Rosie Bevan has stated that you are
an"admired literary critic in Australia") can not distinguish between
my "prose style" and that of Mr. Richardson? Especially when others of
more modest acclaim can! - See: "CED", in his post of 11 Aug 2005
13:58:11 -0700 "Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments".
You have just provided unmistakable evidence that you ARE Uriah N. Owen,
after several weeks of thinking about it. What others may think is not
binding on me.
As for Stewart, your attempts to prove your literary prowess only
demonstrate the opposite. To wit:
I withdraw that remark. It's painfully obvious from your comments that
you exhibit little "breadth of knowledge" (See remarks below).
snip
If ever I wish to read a 19th-century pantomime novel with some real
pay-off
as social commentary, Balzac or Gogol will do me fine. I have read
more than
four books by Dickens, unbidden, with enough displeasure...."
Please elaborate on how a person with your literary acumen fails to
realise that Gogol was heavily influenced by Dickens, in his detail of
characterisation, humour and background. It's obvious that you have
never truly investigated Gogol.
snip
The literary prowess of Gogol can't make any influence upon him into his
equal - you
may as weel say that the success of a student should mean that the
teacher has earned
the same result, so that dfor instance all Nobel Prizes (for literature
or in any
scientific field) should be shared by all the winner's mentors.
What unoriginative codswallop! Of course Gogol's "literary prowess" has
nothing to do with influence upon another author. The question remains,
how could you, a self professed "student of literature", fail to
realise Dicken's influence upon Gogol?
"Unoriginative"? A Richardson coinage if ever there was one. And only
Richardson could be obtuse enough not to realise that his exceedingly dumb
point has been blown out of the water already. No-one has to like reading
every other writer who may have influenced one that is enjoyable or
rewarding to read, nor consider each and every precursor the equal of a
successor in any field. You are repeating utter rot.
snip
As referenced in above subject post of 25th July you state: "I have
read more than four books by Dickens, unbidden". Please tell this
forum
how a person of your literary discernment can take "more than four
books" to develop an allergy to the author?
A very Richardsonian false conclusion: I disliked the first novel, but
it
was necessary to read more because I was a student of literature at the
time, bound by the required reading in a curriculum that I did not set.
Rubbish! If it was "necessary to read more" because it was required
reading bound by a curriculum, HOW could it be "unbidden"?
Simple - the syllabus had more than than the three extra books I read, and
more unpalatable Victorian authors as well as Dickens, to choose from. I was
not bidden to select the ones I did read. There were many others I would not
have read even if required.
snip
What metaphorical anarchy from someone who criticises others! Totally
unexpected, but explainable now that it has been revealed that you
dropped out of Qxford, a charge that you have not denied.
It's not a "charge" to "deny" - there is no offense in leaving a university
without taking a degree. I have freely acknowledged this in my case - I
don't have a degree from Oxford or anywhere else. I don't want one.
This is a simile, not a metaphor, and it isn't mixed anyway but all
about accents.
What a load of codswallop! Your comparison fails to preserve
parallelism between things compared. Actors are trained to emulate
accents.
Goodness, when were you last in a Broadway theatre to observe how badly
Bronx actors can mangle Cockney (and other) accents?
The only metaphorical aspect is in using accents for prose style,
but not in the comparison itself.
What unmittigated rubbish! Your reply reflects a pathetic attempt to
explain your poor sentence construction, inexcusable for someone who is
an "admired literary critic in Australia".
You are ranting - my sentence is perfectly accurate and you can't refute it
by misspelled assertions of your own ignorance.
<snip>
Anyone with your experience and even a modicum of public schooling in
the British system would recognise that 'bumf' is the more common slang
for all the printed dross whose only conceivable use was to be torn up,
hung up on a nail in the privy and used as toilet paper. (See Barrère
and Leland's Dictionary of Slang , 1889).
and is not the same as "blurb" or whatever you meant.
If you had consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, rather than the
web, you would have seen that I meant the classical Latin meaning
anitergium!
Um, "bumf" is not even correct English, much less having anything to do with
"classical Latin".
snip
To summarise, it is patently obvious that this response was written by
someone who was not a literary critic, not schooled in the British
public school system, and from the above exhibition of linguistic
inaccuracy, I daresay from someone posing as Peter Stewart.
Who now has said I was "schooled n the British public school system"? I
wasn't.
And my posts were written by the person who, for any purpose Uriah
Richardson can have and for all he can possibly know, is named Peter
Stewart.
Peter Stewart
-
Rosie Bevan
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Well, I don't know - Peter Stewart posts under Peter Stewart, writes
reviews under Peter Stewart, he answers his phone as Peter Stewart, and
sends and receives mail and email as Peter Stewart. Ian Fettes (whose
integrity is unquestionable) has said he met Peter Stewart.
Could Peter Stewart actually be ...Peter Stewart? (Now there's a novel
thought)
To what end this nonsensical interrogation and prurient obsession about
Peter Stewart? Has there been a heat wave in SLC and Richardson/Uriah
Unknown touched by being in the sun too long?
Rosie Bevan
reviews under Peter Stewart, he answers his phone as Peter Stewart, and
sends and receives mail and email as Peter Stewart. Ian Fettes (whose
integrity is unquestionable) has said he met Peter Stewart.
Could Peter Stewart actually be ...Peter Stewart? (Now there's a novel
thought)
To what end this nonsensical interrogation and prurient obsession about
Peter Stewart? Has there been a heat wave in SLC and Richardson/Uriah
Unknown touched by being in the sun too long?
Rosie Bevan
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Rosie Bevan wrote:
Yet Brandon is now confused about the gender of Peter Stewart -
apparently projecting his own traits onto others, as usual.
Thought is not the forte of Uriah Richardson, who took several weeks to
work out how to make a comprehensive fool of himself by setting up
webmail access under a phoney name through pobox.co.uk.
The sun in remote parts of Turkey must be very debilitating to the
intellect....But the real aim of Richardson and Brandon is just as Leo
has identified - the pair of them can't address any of the specific
issues that come up repeatedly from their ignorant & silly postings, so
they try to distract the newsgroup with goon-show antics about other
people.
It can't matter a jot to the newsgroup if I am Peter Stewart or not,
since with very few exceptions the readers don't have anything to do
with me outside the forum. Those who do know that I am called Peter
Stewart - like an indeterminate number of quite distinct people,
including another who happens to live in the same street as me. This
name appears on countless postings that answer questions for enquirers,
or that raise questions and/or point out problems & deficiencies in
answers given earlier by myself or others.
That is all that has any genuine relevance here.
Peter Stewart
Well, I don't know - Peter Stewart posts under Peter Stewart, writes
reviews under Peter Stewart, he answers his phone as Peter Stewart,
and sends and receives mail and email as Peter Stewart. Ian Fettes
(whose integrity is unquestionable) has said he met Peter Stewart.
Yet Brandon is now confused about the gender of Peter Stewart -
apparently projecting his own traits onto others, as usual.
Could Peter Stewart actually be ...Peter Stewart? (Now there's a novel
thought)
Thought is not the forte of Uriah Richardson, who took several weeks to
work out how to make a comprehensive fool of himself by setting up
webmail access under a phoney name through pobox.co.uk.
To what end this nonsensical interrogation and prurient obsession about
Peter Stewart? Has there been a heat wave in SLC and Richardson/Uriah
Unknown touched by being in the sun too long?
The sun in remote parts of Turkey must be very debilitating to the
intellect....But the real aim of Richardson and Brandon is just as Leo
has identified - the pair of them can't address any of the specific
issues that come up repeatedly from their ignorant & silly postings, so
they try to distract the newsgroup with goon-show antics about other
people.
It can't matter a jot to the newsgroup if I am Peter Stewart or not,
since with very few exceptions the readers don't have anything to do
with me outside the forum. Those who do know that I am called Peter
Stewart - like an indeterminate number of quite distinct people,
including another who happens to live in the same street as me. This
name appears on countless postings that answer questions for enquirers,
or that raise questions and/or point out problems & deficiencies in
answers given earlier by myself or others.
That is all that has any genuine relevance here.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
It is the old trick, if you are being scrutinised you do the same, to throw
people off the track. There are SO many unswered e-mails directed at Douglas
Richardson it is almost funny. Ok he presses a reply button, but does he
give a reply to the point in question?
Oh no, instead he will attack with often ludicrous accusations.
Why does he do it? I was told that _Any_ publicity, even bad publicity is
good publicity. If it is bad if people talk about you, it is worse,
especially when you are lobbying and lobbying to sell a book, if people
don't talk about you. That is probably what it is all about.
There never was a joke about this nonsense about the identity of Peter
Stewart, but if there ever was, it has worn very thin by now.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosie Bevan" <rbevan@paradise.net.nz>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
people off the track. There are SO many unswered e-mails directed at Douglas
Richardson it is almost funny. Ok he presses a reply button, but does he
give a reply to the point in question?
Oh no, instead he will attack with often ludicrous accusations.
Why does he do it? I was told that _Any_ publicity, even bad publicity is
good publicity. If it is bad if people talk about you, it is worse,
especially when you are lobbying and lobbying to sell a book, if people
don't talk about you. That is probably what it is all about.
There never was a joke about this nonsense about the identity of Peter
Stewart, but if there ever was, it has worn very thin by now.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosie Bevan" <rbevan@paradise.net.nz>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Well, I don't know - Peter Stewart posts under Peter Stewart, writes
reviews under Peter Stewart, he answers his phone as Peter Stewart, and
sends and receives mail and email as Peter Stewart. Ian Fettes (whose
integrity is unquestionable) has said he met Peter Stewart.
Could Peter Stewart actually be ...Peter Stewart? (Now there's a novel
thought)
To what end this nonsensical interrogation and prurient obsession about
Peter Stewart? Has there been a heat wave in SLC and Richardson/Uriah
Unknown touched by being in the sun too long?
Rosie Bevan
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Leo van de Pas wrote:
<snip>
Indeed, Leo.
If either Brandon or Richardson had any brains and competence in
research, which we can all clearly see they do not, they would have
found their way to information readily enough on the internet that
would have allayed their idiotic doubts about my real name and literary
criticism published under this.
For instance, Brandon would have found the following, in an issue of
"Australia's leading literary magazine" _Meanjin_, that includes a
review article by me AND a poem by Peter Rose, whom he stupidly and
without any evidence thought might be one & the same person:
http://www.meanjin.unimelb.edu.au/back_issue_2004_1.htm
Instead, Richardson blithely informs us that I have somehow written
only one review (of Harry Potter books) and yet at the same time that
such reviews by me do not exist.
Is he a bigger liar or fool? Now there's a real question that the pair
of idle jokers can exercise their tiny minds over....
Peter Stewart
<snip>
There never was a joke about this nonsense about the identity of
Peter Stewart, but if there ever was, it has worn very thin by now.
Indeed, Leo.
If either Brandon or Richardson had any brains and competence in
research, which we can all clearly see they do not, they would have
found their way to information readily enough on the internet that
would have allayed their idiotic doubts about my real name and literary
criticism published under this.
For instance, Brandon would have found the following, in an issue of
"Australia's leading literary magazine" _Meanjin_, that includes a
review article by me AND a poem by Peter Rose, whom he stupidly and
without any evidence thought might be one & the same person:
http://www.meanjin.unimelb.edu.au/back_issue_2004_1.htm
Instead, Richardson blithely informs us that I have somehow written
only one review (of Harry Potter books) and yet at the same time that
such reviews by me do not exist.
Is he a bigger liar or fool? Now there's a real question that the pair
of idle jokers can exercise their tiny minds over....
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
I haven't really been following this thread, having just found a
website that seems to give the identity of one of my great-great-great
grandmothers, Mary/ Maria (prob. Hoffman), wife of Isaac Wengert of
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and Columbus, Ohio.
But what Peter has posted below (from the Meangin website) is a start,
I guess. It shows at least that there is a person who publishes under
the name of "Peter Stewart" on quasi-literary matters (Greer). (Unless
the whole webpage is a slickly-done mock-up ... hmmm).
I would have had to do much searching to find that nugget (and I wasn't
all _that_ interested, frankly).
website that seems to give the identity of one of my great-great-great
grandmothers, Mary/ Maria (prob. Hoffman), wife of Isaac Wengert of
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and Columbus, Ohio.
But what Peter has posted below (from the Meangin website) is a start,
I guess. It shows at least that there is a person who publishes under
the name of "Peter Stewart" on quasi-literary matters (Greer). (Unless
the whole webpage is a slickly-done mock-up ... hmmm).
For instance, Brandon would have found the following, in an issue of
"Australia's leading literary magazine" _Meanjin_, that includes a
review article by me AND a poem by Peter Rose, whom he stupidly and
without any evidence thought might be one & the same person:
I would have had to do much searching to find that nugget (and I wasn't
all _that_ interested, frankly).
-
John Brandon
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
"Distracted men that sow their hopes in sand ..." indeed.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
What a load of stupid lies - we all saw you turning cartwheels, in a tizzy
fit for weeks, trying to find any scrap of information about me and when you
failed trying to suggest that I could not have published anything under the
name Peter Stewart.
You have been shown up for the deceitful fool you are, and the best you can
do is to pretend in the face of this that you are suddenly distracted, and
were not "_that_ interested"!
And Meanjin (no "g" in the word) is a famous literary title, known
throughout the world, hardly likely to allow someone to mock-up a webpage
for a back issue that YOU CAN FIND in US libraries, and have evidently found
somewhere anyway since you have discovered a quotation from the head of the
article. Why ANOTHER deceit, now that your inane game is up?
Are you so limitlessly silly that it's incomprehensible to you that someone
might be just who he has always represented himself to be, and engaged in
just the pursits you have been told about?
Or are you quite insanely unable to imagine that somenone else actually gets
published, when you just long to be? As we heard from Paul Reed, you can't
contain your jealousy of others who publish in the field of genealogy, so
maybe that is the cause of your obvious & bizarre sickness regarding my
literary criticsm.
Either way, you can't have a shred of respect left from anyone here, & even
Richardson must be ashamed of you.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124974340.880538.216550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
fit for weeks, trying to find any scrap of information about me and when you
failed trying to suggest that I could not have published anything under the
name Peter Stewart.
You have been shown up for the deceitful fool you are, and the best you can
do is to pretend in the face of this that you are suddenly distracted, and
were not "_that_ interested"!
And Meanjin (no "g" in the word) is a famous literary title, known
throughout the world, hardly likely to allow someone to mock-up a webpage
for a back issue that YOU CAN FIND in US libraries, and have evidently found
somewhere anyway since you have discovered a quotation from the head of the
article. Why ANOTHER deceit, now that your inane game is up?
Are you so limitlessly silly that it's incomprehensible to you that someone
might be just who he has always represented himself to be, and engaged in
just the pursits you have been told about?
Or are you quite insanely unable to imagine that somenone else actually gets
published, when you just long to be? As we heard from Paul Reed, you can't
contain your jealousy of others who publish in the field of genealogy, so
maybe that is the cause of your obvious & bizarre sickness regarding my
literary criticsm.
Either way, you can't have a shred of respect left from anyone here, & even
Richardson must be ashamed of you.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124974340.880538.216550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I haven't really been following this thread, having just found a
website that seems to give the identity of one of my great-great-great
grandmothers, Mary/ Maria (prob. Hoffman), wife of Isaac Wengert of
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and Columbus, Ohio.
But what Peter has posted below (from the Meangin website) is a start,
I guess. It shows at least that there is a person who publishes under
the name of "Peter Stewart" on quasi-literary matters (Greer). (Unless
the whole webpage is a slickly-done mock-up ... hmmm).
For instance, Brandon would have found the following, in an issue of
"Australia's leading literary magazine" _Meanjin_, that includes a
review article by me AND a poem by Peter Rose, whom he stupidly and
without any evidence thought might be one & the same person:
I would have had to do much searching to find that nugget (and I wasn't
all _that_ interested, frankly).
http://www.meanjin.unimelb.edu.au/back_issue_2004_1.htm
-
John Brandon
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Wow, fireworks! I must be doing something right!
Peter Stewart wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
What a load of stupid lies - we all saw you turning cartwheels, in a tizzy
fit for weeks, trying to find any scrap of information about me and when you
failed trying to suggest that I could not have published anything under the
name Peter Stewart.
You have been shown up for the deceitful fool you are, and the best you can
do is to pretend in the face of this that you are suddenly distracted, and
were not "_that_ interested"!
And Meanjin (no "g" in the word) is a famous literary title, known
throughout the world, hardly likely to allow someone to mock-up a webpage
for a back issue that YOU CAN FIND in US libraries, and have evidently found
somewhere anyway since you have discovered a quotation from the head of the
article. Why ANOTHER deceit, now that your inane game is up?
Are you so limitlessly silly that it's incomprehensible to you that someone
might be just who he has always represented himself to be, and engaged in
just the pursits you have been told about?
Or are you quite insanely unable to imagine that somenone else actually gets
published, when you just long to be? As we heard from Paul Reed, you can't
contain your jealousy of others who publish in the field of genealogy, so
maybe that is the cause of your obvious & bizarre sickness regarding my
literary criticsm.
Either way, you can't have a shred of respect left from anyone here, & even
Richardson must be ashamed of you.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124974340.880538.216550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I haven't really been following this thread, having just found a
website that seems to give the identity of one of my great-great-great
grandmothers, Mary/ Maria (prob. Hoffman), wife of Isaac Wengert of
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and Columbus, Ohio.
But what Peter has posted below (from the Meangin website) is a start,
I guess. It shows at least that there is a person who publishes under
the name of "Peter Stewart" on quasi-literary matters (Greer). (Unless
the whole webpage is a slickly-done mock-up ... hmmm).
For instance, Brandon would have found the following, in an issue of
"Australia's leading literary magazine" _Meanjin_, that includes a
review article by me AND a poem by Peter Rose, whom he stupidly and
without any evidence thought might be one & the same person:
I would have had to do much searching to find that nugget (and I wasn't
all _that_ interested, frankly).
http://www.meanjin.unimelb.edu.au/back_issue_2004_1.htm
-
John Brandon
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Or are you quite insanely unable to imagine that somenone else actually gets
published, when you just long to be? As we heard from Paul Reed, you
can't
contain your jealousy of others who publish in the field of genealog
Of course, I've published a *few* things (never again, however) ...
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/authors/
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Ah yes, I wondered how long it could be before you feebly claimed that it
was all another of your teensy little jokes.
No dice - we can all see through your humourless obsession and juvenile
envy.
I am perfectly entitled to be indignant at your apish behaviour and crude
excuses. So are all the readers of the newsgroup.
It takes some doing to worm yourself lower in the collective estimation of
SGM than even Richardson, but at last you have managed it.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124976175.338117.319550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
was all another of your teensy little jokes.
No dice - we can all see through your humourless obsession and juvenile
envy.
I am perfectly entitled to be indignant at your apish behaviour and crude
excuses. So are all the readers of the newsgroup.
It takes some doing to worm yourself lower in the collective estimation of
SGM than even Richardson, but at last you have managed it.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124976175.338117.319550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wow, fireworks! I must be doing something right!
Peter Stewart wrote:
What a load of stupid lies - we all saw you turning cartwheels, in a
tizzy
fit for weeks, trying to find any scrap of information about me and when
you
failed trying to suggest that I could not have published anything under
the
name Peter Stewart.
You have been shown up for the deceitful fool you are, and the best you
can
do is to pretend in the face of this that you are suddenly distracted,
and
were not "_that_ interested"!
And Meanjin (no "g" in the word) is a famous literary title, known
throughout the world, hardly likely to allow someone to mock-up a webpage
for a back issue that YOU CAN FIND in US libraries, and have evidently
found
somewhere anyway since you have discovered a quotation from the head of
the
article. Why ANOTHER deceit, now that your inane game is up?
Are you so limitlessly silly that it's incomprehensible to you that
someone
might be just who he has always represented himself to be, and engaged in
just the pursits you have been told about?
Or are you quite insanely unable to imagine that somenone else actually
gets
published, when you just long to be? As we heard from Paul Reed, you
can't
contain your jealousy of others who publish in the field of genealogy, so
maybe that is the cause of your obvious & bizarre sickness regarding my
literary criticsm.
Either way, you can't have a shred of respect left from anyone here, &
even
Richardson must be ashamed of you.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124974340.880538.216550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I haven't really been following this thread, having just found a
website that seems to give the identity of one of my great-great-great
grandmothers, Mary/ Maria (prob. Hoffman), wife of Isaac Wengert of
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and Columbus, Ohio.
But what Peter has posted below (from the Meangin website) is a start,
I guess. It shows at least that there is a person who publishes under
the name of "Peter Stewart" on quasi-literary matters (Greer). (Unless
the whole webpage is a slickly-done mock-up ... hmmm).
For instance, Brandon would have found the following, in an issue of
"Australia's leading literary magazine" _Meanjin_, that includes a
review article by me AND a poem by Peter Rose, whom he stupidly and
without any evidence thought might be one & the same person:
I would have had to do much searching to find that nugget (and I wasn't
all _that_ interested, frankly).
http://www.meanjin.unimelb.edu.au/back_issue_2004_1.htm
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124976436.172677.315160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Nothing since 2001 apparently. Having trouble with editors?
Peter Stewart
news:1124976436.172677.315160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Or are you quite insanely unable to imagine that somenone else actually
gets
published, when you just long to be? As we heard from Paul Reed, you
can't
contain your jealousy of others who publish in the field of genealog
Of course, I've published a *few* things (never again, however) ...
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/authors/
Nothing since 2001 apparently. Having trouble with editors?
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Nothing since 2001 apparently. Having trouble with editors?
Nope, just can't be bothered with all the tiresome work for no pay.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Peter Stewart wrote:
< Richardson is trying to outdo himself in imbecility.
It is not necessary to call me or anyone an imbecile, moron, gadfly,
etc. Name calling is not appropriate on the newsgroup. If you wish to
have an argument with someone, I suggest you take it to private. The
newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
< Richardson is trying to outdo himself in imbecility.
It is not necessary to call me or anyone an imbecile, moron, gadfly,
etc. Name calling is not appropriate on the newsgroup. If you wish to
have an argument with someone, I suggest you take it to private. The
newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
John Brandon
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
For those who wish to read an evanescent smidge of Peter's article, see
http://tinyurl.com/8xgpp
Peter Stewart wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/8xgpp
Peter Stewart wrote:
What a load of stupid lies - we all saw you turning cartwheels, in a tizzy
fit for weeks, trying to find any scrap of information about me and when you
failed trying to suggest that I could not have published anything under the
name Peter Stewart.
You have been shown up for the deceitful fool you are, and the best you can
do is to pretend in the face of this that you are suddenly distracted, and
were not "_that_ interested"!
And Meanjin (no "g" in the word) is a famous literary title, known
throughout the world, hardly likely to allow someone to mock-up a webpage
for a back issue that YOU CAN FIND in US libraries, and have evidently found
somewhere anyway since you have discovered a quotation from the head of the
article. Why ANOTHER deceit, now that your inane game is up?
Are you so limitlessly silly that it's incomprehensible to you that someone
might be just who he has always represented himself to be, and engaged in
just the pursits you have been told about?
Or are you quite insanely unable to imagine that somenone else actually gets
published, when you just long to be? As we heard from Paul Reed, you can't
contain your jealousy of others who publish in the field of genealogy, so
maybe that is the cause of your obvious & bizarre sickness regarding my
literary criticsm.
Either way, you can't have a shred of respect left from anyone here, & even
Richardson must be ashamed of you.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124974340.880538.216550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I haven't really been following this thread, having just found a
website that seems to give the identity of one of my great-great-great
grandmothers, Mary/ Maria (prob. Hoffman), wife of Isaac Wengert of
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and Columbus, Ohio.
But what Peter has posted below (from the Meangin website) is a start,
I guess. It shows at least that there is a person who publishes under
the name of "Peter Stewart" on quasi-literary matters (Greer). (Unless
the whole webpage is a slickly-done mock-up ... hmmm).
For instance, Brandon would have found the following, in an issue of
"Australia's leading literary magazine" _Meanjin_, that includes a
review article by me AND a poem by Peter Rose, whom he stupidly and
without any evidence thought might be one & the same person:
I would have had to do much searching to find that nugget (and I wasn't
all _that_ interested, frankly).
http://www.meanjin.unimelb.edu.au/back_issue_2004_1.htm
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124989777.688509.288960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
By lying about them? By placing their names in quotation marks? By failing
to answer specific and relevant questions, while raising bogus issues about
identity?
"Imbecility" is a perfectly accurate description of your posting behaviour
in this thread. If you wish to argue with this, do so by all means - and do
it publicly, in the same forum in which you tried to cast your fraudulent
aspersions on me.
These continued smarmy & hypocritical assertions of a purpose that you don't
even try to fulfil are only reflecting badly on yourself.
You can't afford any more discredit here.
Peter Stewart
news:1124989777.688509.288960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Richardson is trying to outdo himself in imbecility.
It is not necessary to call me or anyone an imbecile, moron, gadfly,
etc. Name calling is not appropriate on the newsgroup. If you wish to
have an argument with someone, I suggest you take it to private. The
newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.
By lying about them? By placing their names in quotation marks? By failing
to answer specific and relevant questions, while raising bogus issues about
identity?
"Imbecility" is a perfectly accurate description of your posting behaviour
in this thread. If you wish to argue with this, do so by all means - and do
it publicly, in the same forum in which you tried to cast your fraudulent
aspersions on me.
These continued smarmy & hypocritical assertions of a purpose that you don't
even try to fulfil are only reflecting badly on yourself.
You can't afford any more discredit here.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124993040.613997.50460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yet another URL that Brandon & Richardson couldn't find without guidance.
Why should you take this trouble, and why on earth anyone else in this
newsgroup wish to read a mere part of one sentence from a review about
non-genealogical subjects of (from memory) well over 4,000 words?
And you claimed to be not "_that_ interested"!
Peter Stewart
news:1124993040.613997.50460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yet another URL that Brandon & Richardson couldn't find without guidance.
Why should you take this trouble, and why on earth anyone else in this
newsgroup wish to read a mere part of one sentence from a review about
non-genealogical subjects of (from memory) well over 4,000 words?
And you claimed to be not "_that_ interested"!
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Peter Stewart wrote:
I dunnow, beats me ...
Why should you take this trouble, and why on earth anyone else in this
newsgroup wish to read a mere part of one sentence fro
I dunnow, beats me ...
-
CED
Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments
Uriah N. Owen wrote:
To the newsgroup:
How dare DR compare my literary acclaim with that of another in this
group! Modest or not it does not lend itself to comparison in forae
such as this, especially since I have used a pen name.
Style is another matter. Having posted here without regard for the
name, comparisons are proper.
As to whether DR is Uriah Owen, I did say that, based on ability to
write, I doubted whether the two were the same person. Upon further
analysis, the total agreement between the two on substance leads me to
believe that they are the same; and the difference in writing probably
derives from ghost-writing, in which case DR probably didn't get his
money's worth (note grammar).
CED
Peter Stewart wrote:
Golly,
snip
Comments interspersed:
The newsgroup was waiting for Richardson to ppost more reviews of the book,
but no-one expected his own....
What? You would have this forum believe that someone with your
credentials (your close colleague Rosie Bevan has stated that you are
an"admired literary critic in Australia") can not distinguish between
my "prose style" and that of Mr. Richardson? Especially when others of
more modest acclaim can! - See: "CED", in his post of 11 Aug 2005
13:58:11 -0700 "Re: Uriah N. Owen Comments".
To the newsgroup:
How dare DR compare my literary acclaim with that of another in this
group! Modest or not it does not lend itself to comparison in forae
such as this, especially since I have used a pen name.
Style is another matter. Having posted here without regard for the
name, comparisons are proper.
As to whether DR is Uriah Owen, I did say that, based on ability to
write, I doubted whether the two were the same person. Upon further
analysis, the total agreement between the two on substance leads me to
believe that they are the same; and the difference in writing probably
derives from ghost-writing, in which case DR probably didn't get his
money's worth (note grammar).
CED
As for Stewart, your attempts to prove your literary prowess only
demonstrate the opposite. To wit:
I withdraw that remark. It's painfully obvious from your comments that
you exhibit little "breadth of knowledge" (See remarks below).
snip
If ever I wish to read
a 19th-century pantomime novel with some real pay-off as social
commentary, Balzac or Gogol will do me fine. I have read more > > than four
books by Dickens, unbidden, with enough displeasure...."
Please elaborate on how a person with your literary acumen fails to
realise that Gogol was heavily influenced by Dickens, in his detail of
characterisation, humour and background. It's obvious that you have
never truly investigated Gogol.
snip
The literary prowess of Gogol can't
make any influence upon him into his equal - you may as weel say that the
success of a student should mean that the teacher has earned the same
result, so that dfor instance all Nobel Prizes (for literature or in any
scientific field) should be shared by all the winner's mentors.
What unoriginative codswallop! Of course Gogol's "literary prowess" has
nothing to do with influence upon another author. The question remains,
how could you, a self professed "student of literature", fail to
realise Dicken's influence upon Gogol?
snip
As referenced in above subject post of 25th July you state: "I have
read more than four books by Dickens, unbidden". Please tell this forum
how a person of your literary discernment can take "more than four
books" to develop an allergy to the author?
A very Richardsonian false conclusion: I disliked the first novel, but it
was necessary to read more because I was a student of literature at the
time, bound by the required reading in a curriculum that I did not set.
Rubbish! If it was "necessary to read more" because it was required
reading bound by a curriculum, HOW could it be "unbidden"?
snip
What metaphorical anarchy from someone who criticises others! Totally
unexpected, but explainable now that it has been revealed that you
dropped out of Qxford, a charge that you have not denied.
This is a simile, not a metaphor, and it isn't mixed anyway but all about accents.
What a load of codswallop! Your comparison fails to preserve
parallelism between things compared. Actors are trained to emulate
accents.
The only metaphorical aspect is in using accents for prose style,
but not in the comparison itself.
What unmittigated rubbish! Your reply reflects a pathetic attempt to
explain your poor sentence construction, inexcusable for someone who is
an "admired literary critic in Australia".
Equally puzzling is your appending [sic] to the word "bumf" in your
post "Re: Uriah N. Owen's response to Peter Stewart" dated Fri, 22 Jul
2005 08:01:09 GMT. - More characteristic of an American fellow who
posts on this forum, not someone as familiar as you with common
English idioms.
What are you ranting about? "Appending" is your own word, and the one you
were straining for in the earlier post is "bumpf", a British colloquialism
from the Second World War that is all but obsolete today. It refers to
useless guidelines printed in instruction manuals,
Anyone with your experience and even a modicum of public schooling in
the British system would recognise that 'bumf' is the more common slang
for all the printed dross whose only conceivable use was to be torn up,
hung up on a nail in the privy and used as toilet paper. (See Barrère
and Leland's Dictionary of Slang , 1889).
and is not the same as "blurb" or whatever you meant.
If you had consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, rather than the
web, you would have seen that I meant the classical Latin meaning
anitergium!
snip
To summarise, it is patently obvious that this response was written by
someone who was not a literary critic, not schooled in the British
public school system, and from the above exhibition of linguistic
inaccuracy, I daresay from someone posing as Peter Stewart.
Cheers, Uriah