Royalty for Commoners

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 12 sep 2005 04:56:51

Dear PMS ~

I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am struck
by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I seriously doubt I
will ever be Uriah N. Owen.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126456683.548817.206930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The pathetic behaviour of Tweedledum and Tweedledummer won't be
forgotten.

Of course it will--don't be silly.

Um, the last episode of "Uriah" hasn't been forgotten, three years later.

In these circumstances it's not surprising you might hope that people will
forget all about it, but of course they won't.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 sep 2005 05:11:29

Richardson lied:

I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am struck
by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I seriously doubt I
will ever be Uriah N. Owen.

You have given yourself away far too often for anyone to doubt that you
have masqueraded as "Uriah N. Owen" - the fraud is patent, while the
stupidites perpetrated under this phoney name are so characteristic of
your own as to be patented.

"Uriah" is clearly an American who doesn't know enough about different
idioms to pass himself off as British for a few sentences running. The
only purposes that have ever been served by the fake poster are to
shelter you from ridicule when supporting Robert Todd, and more lately
to provide support for yourself that no-one else was idiotic enough to
offer.

Moreover you used the imagined cover to accuse me falsely of your own
vile habit of lying - as preposterous as an ass trying to hide itself
behind a blade of grass. Even Hines had the sense to run off into the
tall grass of silence on the subject, unlike you: again proof of an
obtuseness that borders on insanity - from the far side.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 12 sep 2005 05:31:22

Dear PMS ~

So the full impact of my previous post will rebound in your part of the
world, I'll repeat it again for added emphasis:

"I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am struck
by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I seriously doubt I
will ever be Uriah N. Owen."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:
Richardson lied:

I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am struck
by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I seriously doubt I
will ever be Uriah N. Owen.

You have given yourself away far too often for anyone to doubt that you
have masqueraded as "Uriah N. Owen" - the fraud is patent, while the
stupidites perpetrated under this phoney name are so characteristic of
your own as to be patented.

"Uriah" is clearly an American who doesn't know enough about different
idioms to pass himself off as British for a few sentences running. The
only purposes that have ever been served by the fake poster are to
shelter you from ridicule when supporting Robert Todd, and more lately
to provide support for yourself that no-one else was idiotic enough to
offer.

Moreover you used the imagined cover to accuse me falsely of your own
vile habit of lying - as preposterous as an ass trying to hide itself
behind a blade of grass. Even Hines had the sense to run off into the
tall grass of silence on the subject, unlike you: again proof of an
obtuseness that borders on insanity - from the far side.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

"Uriah N. Owen"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 sep 2005 06:32:16

Hmmmmmm...

Pogue Stewart has clearly slipped his fragile tether to both Reality and
Sanity again -- and is off on a "Uriah Rant" once more.

Hilarious!

Pogue Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126498288.978729.314870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Richardson lied:
|
| > I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am
struck
| > by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I seriously doubt I
| > will ever be Uriah N. Owen.
|
| You have given yourself away far too often for anyone to doubt that
you
| have masqueraded as "Uriah N. Owen" - the fraud is patent, while the
| stupidites perpetrated under this phoney name are so characteristic of
| your own as to be patented.
|
| "Uriah" is clearly an American who doesn't know enough about different
| idioms to pass himself off as British for a few sentences running. The
| only purposes that have ever been served by the fake poster are to
| shelter you from ridicule when supporting Robert Todd, and more lately
| to provide support for yourself that no-one else was idiotic enough to
| offer.
|
| Moreover you used the imagined cover to accuse me falsely of your own
| vile habit of lying - as preposterous as an ass trying to hide itself
| behind a blade of grass. Even Hines had the sense to run off into the
| tall grass of silence on the subject, unlike you: again proof of an
| obtuseness that borders on insanity - from the far side.
|
| Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 sep 2005 07:18:51

Richardson redoubled his lies:

So the full impact of my previous post will rebound in your part of the
world, I'll repeat it again for added emphasis:

Repetition doesn't help you out of the mess. Denial is useless.

We all KNOW that you have been using a phoney identity to lend an
appearance of support to your lies and blather. You were caught out
after Welch passed on your concoction about "Uriah" being in Turkey &
unable to post directly to the newsgroup, and then you forgetfully
denied this fabrication in the name of "Uriah".

If you are going to maintain that you were not guilty in this
particular matter, then you can't avoid branding Welch as the source of
one set of lies. Strange, motiveless behaviour on his part....

You will still have another set of lies to account for on your own -
for instance, "Uriah" knowing about Paul Reed's number plate, your own
silence when the Turkey business came up and Welch failed to answer for
his role in this, the crude failure of "Uriah" to use idiomatic British
English. And all of this when the bogus identity had NO purpose at any
stage but to lend support to YOU.

If you are now trying to worm out of this predicament, you will have to
explain these mixed messages coming at once from the horse's mouth and
the same horse's arse.

Hines keeps tippy-toeing around this but won't come out and say that he
believes you are NOT "Uriah N. Owen". Only he has any reservations, and
these are just from his complicity in deceit & foolishness with you
because he can't admit to equally obvious errors on his own part. Rum
that you have only his specious assistance to rely on, and not a word
of support from any respected member of the newsgroup.

Does that tell you nothing at all? Are you every bit as stupid as you
are despicable?

"I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am struck
by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I seriously doubt I
will ever be Uriah N. Owen."

It's far too late for more bare-faced lies. You can choose between
confessing and apologising to readers for the imposture, or having
everyone here know that you are responsible for it but not decent
enough to own up, even when your loyal friend Welch has come under
suspicion due to your incompetence as a liar.

Peter Stewart

Uriah N. Owen

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Uriah N. Owen » 14 sep 2005 04:48:47

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message

<snip>

Congratulations, old fruit, (the British idiomatic usage, of
course)you finally twigged to the connection - and it only took you
three years!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that you majored in english
literature?

No, I didn't say this, and nor should "Uriah". Americans "major" in
subjects, while British people "read" them.

What? In an earlier post I used an American idiom when I e-mailed an
American author. Why shouldn't I use an Australian idiom when
addressing an Australian? Australians DO "major" in subjects!

If you really are the editor/critic that you claim to be, I hope that
you didn't give up your day job!

Agatha Christie is NOT literature - she wrote pulp fiction, with corny
story-lines, mostly stock characters, all contrived at the level of
intellect & taste of the intended readers and not well written at that. The
lady never pretended or wished to be thought "literary". I have read a few
of her books (rather booklets) during illnesses, but only the faults were
memorable.

Obviously as a part time critic, you are entitled to your own opinion,
but it is just that. Other critics, of more international acclaim, (the
New York Drama Critics Circle), have named Agatha Christie's
"Witness for the Prosecution " as the best foreign play of the
1954-55 season, after only one season (1953) on the London stage!


This worthless post from "Uriah" adds nothing to the discourse: we all knew
the name was a crude pseudonym, and even Welch admitted this off-list while
lying about Turkey. The question isn't the phoney name, but the phoney
identity it provides for Richardson.

Stop tugging your grizzled beard!

Your self-inflicted catterwaulling is annoying to say the least. No one
has lied to you. Mr. Richardson is not Uriah Owen, nor I Uriah
Richardson. Furthermore, Mr. Welch told you the truth. He stated that
the message CAME from Turkey.(see Leo van de Pas' post of the fifth
to this thread).

I have never LIVED in Turkey. I own property in Turkey, as so many
Brits do. Now give it a rest and stop your blathering.

<snip>
Peter Stewart

Sincerely, Uriah

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 sep 2005 05:17:44

Ho hum. Comment interspersed.

"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126669727.642378.75680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message

snip

Congratulations, old fruit, (the British idiomatic usage, of
course)you finally twigged to the connection - and it only took you
three years!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that you majored in english
literature?

No, I didn't say this, and nor should "Uriah". Americans "major" in
subjects, while British people "read" them.

What? In an earlier post I used an American idiom when I e-mailed an
American author. Why shouldn't I use an Australian idiom when
addressing an Australian? Australians DO "major" in subjects!

Australians "study" subjects, and perhaps some of the more impressionable
like to use the Americanism of "major" as a verb - but not students of
English Literature as far as I'm aware, and certainly not competent ones.
Your excuse of using language in a chameleon way, depending on the
interlocutor, is of course another failed joke, as is "old fruit". Alfred
Dolittle might have used such a term, but only spivs and con-artists would
do so today.

If you really are the editor/critic that you claim to be, I hope that
you didn't give up your day job!

Agatha Christie is NOT literature - she wrote pulp fiction, with corny
story-lines, mostly stock characters, all contrived at the level of
intellect & taste of the intended readers and not well written at that.
The
lady never pretended or wished to be thought "literary". I have read a
few
of her books (rather booklets) during illnesses, but only the faults were
memorable.

Obviously as a part time critic, you are entitled to your own opinion,
but it is just that. Other critics, of more international acclaim, (the
New York Drama Critics Circle), have named Agatha Christie's
"Witness for the Prosecution " as the best foreign play of the
1954-55 season, after only one season (1953) on the London stage!

Impenetrably stupid & uncomprehending, as always with Richardson, now trying
to compare a raw orange to an apple pie - you are talking not about a novel
but a PLAY, not an individual experience of a lone reader but a
collaborative production before an audience. Agatha Christie is somewhat
like Charles Dickens in this regard, that many of her works make for good
light entertainment when dramatised. She was perfectly capable of doing this
herself. "Witness for the Prosecution" also made a fine movie, stolen by
Marlene Dietrich. But the script is meant for playing by actors, not for
reading. And it is no more to be considered "literature" than "The Mouse
Trap" that played for decades without ever rising to this level in the
general estimation.

This worthless post from "Uriah" adds nothing to the discourse: we all
knew
the name was a crude pseudonym, and even Welch admitted this off-list
while
lying about Turkey. The question isn't the phoney name, but the phoney
identity it provides for Richardson.

Stop tugging your grizzled beard!

Your self-inflicted catterwaulling is annoying to say the least. No one
has lied to you. Mr. Richardson is not Uriah Owen, nor I Uriah
Richardson. Furthermore, Mr. Welch told you the truth. He stated that
the message CAME from Turkey.(see Leo van de Pas' post of the fifth
to this thread).

I have never LIVED in Turkey. I own property in Turkey, as so many
Brits do. Now give it a rest and stop your blathering.

Another utterly pathetic & transparent lie. On September 5 under the name
"Uriah N. Own" Richardson posted as follows:

"What? I was born and raised a British subject. If you have any proof to the
contrary, present it to this forum . (NB - not just hearsay or your
opinion) Otherwise your words are totally fallacious.

"Further, I have never lived in Turkey! - Again, prove your allegations or
be branded a willfully fraudulent liar."

What sort of dishonest imbecile accuses people without qualification of
lying about his living in Turkey one day, and then falsely admits after a
fortnight of silence on the matter that after all he does own property and
spend time there on another?

This is the work of an unschooled lout, trying to keep up an imposture that
we all saw through long ago. It is an insult to the newsgroup, and in
particular to Mike Welch who has loyally kept quiet while the lie he
transmitted was exposed here. There can be no recovery from the humiliation
through further lies. Richardson has been caught, that's all there is to it.
Hines has been shown up as a coward and a liar too, for he claimed that
Richarson has changed since he last called him a fraud and yet he won't
state that he believes him to be telling the truth today.

snip

Peter Stewart

Sincerely, Uriah


Another Americanism, pure Richardson. Apart from the flagrant INsincerity,
British people conventionally sign "Yours sincerely" but not just
"Sincerely".

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 sep 2005 06:33:02

Pogue Stewart, our performing seal, delights his audience with another
encore.

"Old Rugger" doesn't really suit him -- "Young Fruit" might.

DSH

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 sep 2005 07:44:06

Hines wrote:

Pogue Stewart, our performing seal, delights his audience with another
encore.

"Old Rugger" doesn't really suit him -- "Young Fruit" might.

More avoidance of the issues from Hines - no more to the point than a
bit of jazz from his better namesake Earl 'Fatha'.

When - IF - you can find your way back out of the tall grass thicket,
Hines, we are still waiting to hear your plain statement about whether
or not you believe Richardson over "Uriah". Weeks of shillying and
shallying haven't helped you out of this sticky predicament: either he
is a liar or he is telling us the whopping truth. Which is it?

And we are still waiting for any rationale defending yourself over
misogyny.

Do we have to come in after you & cut the grass with a whipper-snipper?

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 14 sep 2005 15:01:45

Another utterly pathetic & transparent lie. On September 5 under the name
"Uriah N. Own" Richardson posted as follows:

Sort of like the transparent lie that your initials are _not_ P. M. S.
See http://tinyurl.com/9tr4l

I also think this is interesting ...

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ee/people/pro ... ewart.html

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 14 sep 2005 17:25:06

Dear PMS tewart ~

You're way out of control - like a drunken fighter swinging at anything
in sight. Sometimes I wonder if you're all there.

As for your current wild allegations, I do not now, nor have I ever
lived in Turkey. I own no property there. I do have turkey for our
traditional Thanksgiving dinner here in America, but that's it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart wrote:
Another utterly pathetic & transparent lie. On September 5 under the name
"Uriah N. Own" Richardson posted as follows:

"What? I was born and raised a British subject. If you have any proof to the
contrary, present it to this forum . (NB - not just hearsay or your
opinion) Otherwise your words are totally fallacious.

"Further, I have never lived in Turkey! - Again, prove your allegations or
be branded a willfully fraudulent liar."

What sort of dishonest imbecile accuses people without qualification of
lying about his living in Turkey one day, and then falsely admits after a
fortnight of silence on the matter that after all he does own property and
spend time there on another?

This is the work of an unschooled lout, trying to keep up an imposture that
we all saw through long ago. It is an insult to the newsgroup, and in
particular to Mike Welch who has loyally kept quiet while the lie he
transmitted was exposed here. There can be no recovery from the humiliation
through further lies. Richardson has been caught, that's all there is to it.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 sep 2005 23:15:54

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126703700.847723.35060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Another utterly pathetic & transparent lie. On September 5 under the name
"Uriah N. Own" Richardson posted as follows:

Sort of like the transparent lie that your initials are _not_ P. M. S.
See http://tinyurl.com/9tr4l

I also think this is interesting ...

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ee/people/pro ... ewart.html

You've gone badly wrong yet again - the e-mail address that transfixes your
attention for some bizarre reason does NOT give my full name with all
initials. That's not a matter for debate or opinion. It's also not something
you could possibly know about, or will be told, so why keep trying? Of
course I acknowledge that "PM Stewart" appears on my newsgroup posts, and
the research that Richardson was filching had appeared under this. It's no
different from him saying "How did the research of "royalancestry.com"
rematerialise under another byline?" (although no-one would be fool enough
to pinch anything of his).

As to the total stranger whose image you have presented in the link, this is
only further proof that you are obsessed with me and lying when you claim to
pay no attention to me in between your compulsive & moronic posts.

Several newsgroup members have met me and can inform you that the person
from La Trobe is NOT me.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 sep 2005 23:24:24

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126715106.402915.102230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear PMS tewart ~

You're way out of control - like a drunken fighter swinging at anything
in sight. Sometimes I wonder if you're all there.

As for your current wild allegations, I do not now, nor have I ever
lived in Turkey. I own no property there. I do have turkey for our
traditional Thanksgiving dinner here in America, but that's it.

We all know this - the point is that you have masqueraded as "Uriah N. Owen"
for devious purposes, and tried to accuse ME of lying about YOUR pretense
that this personage had e-mailed you from Turkey but was somehow unable to
e-mail the GEN-MED list directly.

You then tried the lamest lie I can recall EVER coming across, pretending
that many British people own property in Turkey (untrue anyway) and that
"Uriah" is one of them - apparently experiencing total amnesia about this
when the whole business was misrepresented by YOU as a fabricaition of MINE.

Is "Uriah" too suffering from a personality disorder, so that like
Richardson he can't take in how absolutely, ridiculously implausible his
lies are? And how absolutely infantile & repellent his misogynistic harping
on "PMS" is in a public newsgroup?

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 15 sep 2005 00:48:31

Dear PMS ~

You're out of control. Get a grip, old man.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126715106.402915.102230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear PMS tewart ~

You're way out of control - like a drunken fighter swinging at anything
in sight. Sometimes I wonder if you're all there.

As for your current wild allegations, I do not now, nor have I ever
lived in Turkey. I own no property there. I do have turkey for our
traditional Thanksgiving dinner here in America, but that's it.

We all know this - the point is that you have masqueraded as "Uriah N. Owen"
for devious purposes, and tried to accuse ME of lying about YOUR pretense
that this personage had e-mailed you from Turkey but was somehow unable to
e-mail the GEN-MED list directly.

You then tried the lamest lie I can recall EVER coming across, pretending
that many British people own property in Turkey (untrue anyway) and that
"Uriah" is one of them - apparently experiencing total amnesia about this
when the whole business was misrepresented by YOU as a fabricaition of MINE.

Is "Uriah" too suffering from a personality disorder, so that like
Richardson he can't take in how absolutely, ridiculously implausible his
lies are? And how absolutely infantile & repellent his misogynistic harping
on "PMS" is in a public newsgroup?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 01:20:20

Ricahrdson wrote:

Dear PMS ~

You're out of control. Get a grip, old man.

At least Richardson has woken up that he can't control me, as he
evidently does Welch and Brandon.

Now if only he would see the tastelessness of his schoolboy squib about
"PMS" we might begin to make some progess.

He and Brandon are not aware that my private e-mail address has a quite
different letter following "p" - there are at least six newsgroup
members who can confirm this. Why would anyone suppose that I might use
my actual initials in an e-mail address-of-convenience that, as I have
advised the newsgroup several times, was set up & abandoned merely as a
decoy to guard against spam & unsolicited correspondence, while using a
different string in my own private and working e-mail address?

But then sense doesn't come into it with Richardson and Brandon, I
suppose.

Since they are both so hyper at present, maybe Brandon could try to
calm himself down long enough to put on record whether or not he now
believes Richardson about "Uriah"? And if he does, to tell us how he
rationalises the conflicting messages about Turkey?

It will be interesting to see if Brandon has any more courage of his
apparent convictions than Hines.

The rest of us know that we have been subjected to the dumbest set of
lies, from the lousiest set of liars, yet to emerge on SGM.

If he doesn't believe Richardson, perhaps Brandon would care to explain
why he can't understand that I might be simply telling the truth, about
him and about myself, having nothing to hide, nothing to gain and
nothing to promote?

Peter Stewart

Uriah N. Owen

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Uriah N. Owen » 15 sep 2005 04:33:45

Peter Stewart wrote:

Comments interspersed.

snip>.... Americans "major" in
subjects, while British people "read" them.

What? In an earlier post I used an American idiom when I e-mailed an
American author. Why shouldn't I use an Australian idiom when
addressing an Australian? Australians DO "major" in subjects!

Australians "study" subjects, and perhaps some of the more impressionable
like to use the Americanism of "major" as a verb - but not students of
English Literature as far as I'm aware, and certainly not competent ones.

Rubbish! Follow this URL:

http://www.english.unimelb.edu.au/liter ... cture.html

and you have:

"Department of English with Cultural Studies, Course Structure -
Literary Studies Major Requirements for a Major in English - Literary
Studies: A Major in English Literary Studies usually consists of nine
12.5 point subjects, totalling 112.5 points. It comprises:" etc.....

<snip>

Stop tugging your grizzled beard!

Your self-inflicted catterwaulling is annoying to say the least. No one
has lied to you. Mr. Richardson is not Uriah Owen, nor I Uriah
Richardson. Furthermore, Mr. Welch told you the truth. He stated that
the message CAME from Turkey.(see Leo van de Pas' post of the fifth
to this thread).

I have never LIVED in Turkey. I own property in Turkey, as so many
Brits do. Now give it a rest and stop your blathering.

Another utterly pathetic & transparent lie. On September 5 under the name
"Uriah N. Own" Richardson posted as follows:

"What? I was born and raised a British subject. If you have any proof to the
contrary, present it to this forum . (NB - not just hearsay or your
opinion) Otherwise your words are totally fallacious.

"Further, I have never lived in Turkey! - Again, prove your allegations or
be branded a willfully fraudulent liar."

What sort of dishonest imbecile accuses people without
qualification of
lying about his living in Turkey one day,

Apparently you are the sort to do so., (lying about living in Turkey)
as you blather on repeatedly: (Capital letters added for emphasis)

From: "Peter Stewart",soc.genealogy.medieval Subject: Re: Royalty For
Commoners Dated: 5 Sep 2005 00:03:25 -0700 - ""Uriah N. Owen" & his
inability to post directly due to LIVING in Turkey"

From: "Peter Stewart" Subject: Re: Royalty For Commoners Dated: Mon,
05 Sep 2005 09:15:34 GMT - "Now Richardson has tried to deny, as
"Uriah", that this individual was supposed to BE in Turkey, and has
accused me of fabricating this. We shall see, and since the flasehoods
were perpetrated here they will of course be exposed here".

From: "Peter Stewart" Subject: Re: Royalty for Commoners Dated: 31 Aug
2005 22:12:59 -0700 - ""Uriah" is supposed to be an Englishman who
LIVES in Turkey"


Owning property as an investment is NOT the same as LIVING in the
country. I find it hard to swallow that even a rank amateur editor as
yourself would confuse words that way. Editors/critics are supposed to
be able to discern the most subtle differences in words, not create
monuments to their ignorance, which in your case borders on stupidity.
And don't forget, ignorance can be cured, stupidity is forever.
Furthermore, Bodrum and Marmaris in Turkey are not only a few hours
flying time from Heathrow, but are ideal locations for a quick holiday.

and then falsely admits after a
fortnight of silence on the matter that after all he does own property and
spend time there on another?

P.S. Refresh my memory, where did I say that I "spend time there on
another" Without proof, just more blather.

snip


Sincerely, Uriah


Another Americanism, pure Richardson. Apart from the flagrant INsincerity,
British people conventionally sign "Yours sincerely" but not just
"Sincerely".

So I am unconventional in my signature. - It didn't bother you before.

Peter Stewart

Sincerely, Uriah

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 05:04:31

Richardson gets more preposterous & stupid by the hour....is it a full moon?

Comments interspersed:

"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126755217.735670.211300@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

Comments interspersed.

snip>.... Americans "major" in
subjects, while British people "read" them.

What? In an earlier post I used an American idiom when I e-mailed an
American author. Why shouldn't I use an Australian idiom when
addressing an Australian? Australians DO "major" in subjects!

Australians "study" subjects, and perhaps some of the more impressionable
like to use the Americanism of "major" as a verb - but not students of
English Literature as far as I'm aware, and certainly not competent ones.

Rubbish! Follow this URL:

http://www.english.unimelb.edu.au/liter ... cture.html

and you have:

"Department of English with Cultural Studies, Course Structure -
Literary Studies Major Requirements for a Major in English - Literary
Studies: A Major in English Literary Studies usually consists of nine
12.5 point subjects, totalling 112.5 points. It comprises:" etc.....

Where "major" is a NOUN not a VERB as in your post, Richardson, you utter
moron - this is SO TIRESOME, only Richardson could possibly be so
unfathomably stupid as to keep trying this kind of rubbish and to keep
digging himself deeper into the hole he had made.

snip

Stop tugging your grizzled beard!

Your self-inflicted catterwaulling is annoying to say the least. No one
has lied to you. Mr. Richardson is not Uriah Owen, nor I Uriah
Richardson. Furthermore, Mr. Welch told you the truth. He stated that
the message CAME from Turkey.(see Leo van de Pas' post of the fifth
to this thread).

I have never LIVED in Turkey. I own property in Turkey, as so many
Brits do. Now give it a rest and stop your blathering.

Another utterly pathetic & transparent lie. On September 5 under the name
"Uriah N. Own" Richardson posted as follows:

"What? I was born and raised a British subject. If you have any proof to
the
contrary, present it to this forum . (NB - not just hearsay or your
opinion) Otherwise your words are totally fallacious.

"Further, I have never lived in Turkey! - Again, prove your allegations
or
be branded a willfully fraudulent liar."

What sort of dishonest imbecile accuses people without
qualification of
lying about his living in Turkey one day,

Apparently you are the sort to do so., (lying about living in Turkey)
as you blather on repeatedly: (Capital letters added for emphasis)

From: "Peter Stewart",soc.genealogy.medieval Subject: Re: Royalty For
Commoners Dated: 5 Sep 2005 00:03:25 -0700 - ""Uriah N. Owen" & his
inability to post directly due to LIVING in Turkey"

From: "Peter Stewart" Subject: Re: Royalty For Commoners Dated: Mon,
05 Sep 2005 09:15:34 GMT - "Now Richardson has tried to deny, as
"Uriah", that this individual was supposed to BE in Turkey, and has
accused me of fabricating this. We shall see, and since the flasehoods
were perpetrated here they will of course be exposed here".

From: "Peter Stewart" Subject: Re: Royalty for Commoners Dated: 31 Aug
2005 22:12:59 -0700 - ""Uriah" is supposed to be an Englishman who
LIVES in Turkey"


Owning property as an investment is NOT the same as LIVING in the
country. I find it hard to swallow that even a rank amateur editor as
yourself would confuse words that way. Editors/critics are supposed to
be able to discern the most subtle differences in words, not create
monuments to their ignorance, which in your case borders on stupidity.
And don't forget, ignorance can be cured, stupidity is forever.
Furthermore, Bodrum and Marmaris in Turkey are not only a few hours
flying time from Heathrow, but are ideal locations for a quick holiday.

It is beyond credit that RIchardson keeps plugging aweay at this absurd
lie, even getting out his atlas now. "Uriah" owns not one but TWO holiday
homes in Turkey, and yet can't recall being there.

The inescapable fact is that "Uriah" was supposed to be in Turkey when he
communicated to the newsgroup via Richardson instead of doing so directly.
Strange to be in such convoluted touch with the world while relaxing in some
convenient spot (or spots, projecting his multiple personalities across the
map) "only a few hours" from Heathrow. This appallingly foolish lie was
spread off-list through Mike Welch: we have never heard any denial of this
or any explanation of such a weird procedure.

However, "Uriah" later accused me of lying about Turkey, without ANY
qualification admitting that he had actually been there and was himself
responsible for any misleading impression over his domicile or the duration
of his stay (which is quite irrelevant anyway). When called on this deceit,
Richardson tried to pretend that "Uriah" had been in Turkey after all, only
he evidently forgot to mention this compromising fact when trying to accuse
ME of fabricating the link. Now he is trying a cheap semantic trick, but
it's USELESS: if "Uriah" he was at the same time alive and in Turkey, it is
equally open to me to say that he was literally "living in Turkey". Full
stop.

Richardson dissembled once too often, and now he just can't stop even though
we all see through him.

and then falsely admits after a
fortnight of silence on the matter that after all he does own property
and
spend time there on another?

P.S. Refresh my memory, where did I say that I "spend time there on
another" Without proof, just more blather.

snip


Sincerely, Uriah


Another Americanism, pure Richardson. Apart from the flagrant
INsincerity,
British people conventionally sign "Yours sincerely" but not just
"Sincerely".

So I am unconventional in my signature. - It didn't bother you before.

It doesn't bother me now - the more you give yourself away the better, so
that NO-ONE, not even Mike Welch, can be in any doubt as to your unscupulous
imposture and compulsive lying.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 15 sep 2005 07:02:17

Dear Newsgroup ~

Before Peter Stewart makes more wild allegations about British people
owning property in Turkey (showing his lack of knowledge on the
matter), I suggest he go to the following website:

http://www.property-gems.co.uk/

This website contains the following information:

"Buying property abroad has become increasingly popular with the
British and Northern Europeans for various reasons, mainly the warm
climate, affordable prices and investment opportunities. With the poor
returns on the stocks and shares market and uncertainty of pension
fund's future, more and more ordinary people invest their hard earned
cash into bricks and mortar by buying a property abroad.

Property for sale in the emerging markets of Turkey and Bulgaria in the
past few years has become a big attraction for investors and holiday
home owners as they provide an affordable opportunity to own a place in
the sun.

Pick up the phone - 0161 941 2070 and we will talk you through the
options of buying an apartment or villa in Spain, buy to let apartment
in the Canary Islands (Tenerife), holiday apartment in Bulgaria or
permanent home (villa or apartment) in Turkey. The choice is yours!"
END OF QUOTE.

Well, Peter, there you have it. Pick up the phone. The choice is
yours! You too can become a neighbor of Uriah N. Owen in Turkey.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126715106.402915.102230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear PMS tewart ~

You're way out of control - like a drunken fighter swinging at anything
in sight. Sometimes I wonder if you're all there.

As for your current wild allegations, I do not now, nor have I ever
lived in Turkey. I own no property there. I do have turkey for our
traditional Thanksgiving dinner here in America, but that's it.

We all know this - the point is that you have masqueraded as "Uriah N. Owen"
for devious purposes, and tried to accuse ME of lying about YOUR pretense
that this personage had e-mailed you from Turkey but was somehow unable to
e-mail the GEN-MED list directly.

You then tried the lamest lie I can recall EVER coming across, pretending
that many British people own property in Turkey (untrue anyway) and that
"Uriah" is one of them - apparently experiencing total amnesia about this
when the whole business was misrepresented by YOU as a fabricaition of MINE.

Is "Uriah" too suffering from a personality disorder, so that like
Richardson he can't take in how absolutely, ridiculously implausible his
lies are? And how absolutely infantile & repellent his misogynistic harping
on "PMS" is in a public newsgroup?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 07:08:33

"Uriah" Richardson wrote:

<snip>

P.S. Refresh my memory, where did I say that I "spend time there
on another" Without proof, just more blather.

I missed this falsehood before: "Uriah" tells us he owns investment
properties in at least two places in Turkey, to prop up his ruinous
explanation of having been in that country when he sent e-mails to
Richardson for transmission to the newsgroup, even though he had
previously tried to call me a liar WITHOUT admitting to this deliberate
misinformation - in turns by commission and omission - on his own part.

Now he seeks to cast doubt on my straightforward statement that he
claims to "spend time" in Turkey. Did he flit across the country
without alighting on land, to spy on his investments and send the odd
e-mail to himself from on high?

Just what is he high on? Can ANYONE explain what "Uriah" might think he
is playing at with these totally dishonest mixed messages?

Or is Richardson now openly knitting with lies, wanting us all to know
that he is an outright fraud but still not able to admit this in so
many words?

He has got so deep in stupidity over this matter that I suspect Robert
Todd must have resurfaced, to push him down the slide of deceit into
the mud-hole of irrationality that he is now helplessly wallowing in.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 sep 2005 08:55:02

Hilarious!

I think Stewart should buy property in Turkey -- close to where Uriah
has his -- so he can see Uriah every day Uriah is there.

Why, I'll bet the two could become really good friends.

DSH

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 09:29:08

And Richardson was in real estate! What pray does an "emerging" market mean?
Not that "many" British people ALREADY own property there, as "Uriah"
Richardson tried to claim, but rather that some huckster is hoping to flog
property to the unwary. Turkey is still outside the European Union, and not
likely to overtake other & closer destinations as an Eastern Mediterranean
property market for the British any time soon.

Will Richardson EVER learn that the only possible way to avoid manking a
fool of himself is to keep quiet?

The point he keeps ignoring is that AS "URIAH" he accused me of fabricating
his alleged link to Turkey, and only under threat of exposing his friend
Welch's e-mail advice that "Uriah" WAS in Turkey did he climb down and
pretend that he HAD been there after all, only on a flying visit to inspect
his investments.

Well, if he bought into an "emerging" market while thinking it was already
established, he is clearly no better at strategic investment than he is at
medieval genealogy.

Imagine someone who would waste his time on the Internet trying to find real
estate advertisements and occurrences of "major", as the wrong part of
speech, thinking this could justify idiocies that everyone has seen through
already!

Peter Stewart


<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126760999.334508.190610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

Before Peter Stewart makes more wild allegations about British people
owning property in Turkey (showing his lack of knowledge on the
matter), I suggest he go to the following website:

http://www.property-gems.co.uk/

This website contains the following information:

"Buying property abroad has become increasingly popular with the
British and Northern Europeans for various reasons, mainly the warm
climate, affordable prices and investment opportunities. With the poor
returns on the stocks and shares market and uncertainty of pension
fund's future, more and more ordinary people invest their hard earned
cash into bricks and mortar by buying a property abroad.

Property for sale in the emerging markets of Turkey and Bulgaria in the
past few years has become a big attraction for investors and holiday
home owners as they provide an affordable opportunity to own a place in
the sun.

Pick up the phone - 0161 941 2070 and we will talk you through the
options of buying an apartment or villa in Spain, buy to let apartment
in the Canary Islands (Tenerife), holiday apartment in Bulgaria or
permanent home (villa or apartment) in Turkey. The choice is yours!"
END OF QUOTE.

Well, Peter, there you have it. Pick up the phone. The choice is
yours! You too can become a neighbor of Uriah N. Owen in Turkey.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126715106.402915.102230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear PMS tewart ~

You're way out of control - like a drunken fighter swinging at anything
in sight. Sometimes I wonder if you're all there.

As for your current wild allegations, I do not now, nor have I ever
lived in Turkey. I own no property there. I do have turkey for our
traditional Thanksgiving dinner here in America, but that's it.

We all know this - the point is that you have masqueraded as "Uriah N.
Owen"
for devious purposes, and tried to accuse ME of lying about YOUR pretense
that this personage had e-mailed you from Turkey but was somehow unable
to
e-mail the GEN-MED list directly.

You then tried the lamest lie I can recall EVER coming across, pretending
that many British people own property in Turkey (untrue anyway) and that
"Uriah" is one of them - apparently experiencing total amnesia about this
when the whole business was misrepresented by YOU as a fabricaition of
MINE.

Is "Uriah" too suffering from a personality disorder, so that like
Richardson he can't take in how absolutely, ridiculously implausible his
lies are? And how absolutely infantile & repellent his misogynistic
harping
on "PMS" is in a public newsgroup?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 09:31:50

So Hines now implies that he believes "Uriah" to be a real person after all.
Still he won't state this, but if he believes "Uriah" owns property and can
be seen every day there is nowhere left to hide in his grass refuge.

We are all agog to hear how he works this out from the available evidence.
Otherwise we will be obliged to conclude that he is as dumb and incompetent
at analysis as Richardson himself....

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cU8We.41$pc1.625@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

I think Stewart should buy property in Turkey -- close to where Uriah
has his -- so he can see Uriah every day Uriah is there.

Why, I'll bet the two could become really good friends.

DSH

John Brandon

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 sep 2005 14:07:36

Several newsgroup members have met me and can inform you that the person
from La Trobe is NOT me.

Peter Stewart

Oh well. But at least it _is_ a convenient image. In the future,
whenever I think of you, I'll probably see this guy's picture:
slightly stodgy, slightly dull, but always ready to bark out orders to
underlings and social inferiors.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 15 sep 2005 14:26:46

In message of 15 Sep, "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

Several newsgroup members have met me and can inform you that the person
from La Trobe is NOT me.

Peter Stewart

Oh well. But at least it _is_ a convenient image. In the future,
whenever I think of you, I'll probably see this guy's picture:
slightly stodgy, slightly dull, but always ready to bark out orders to
underlings and social inferiors.


And can we have a similar image for you?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

John Brandon

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 sep 2005 14:37:31

And can we have a similar image for you?

You can conjure up anything you like I suppose (there aren't any photos
of me--that I'm aware of--out there in cyberspace).

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 15 sep 2005 15:55:45

Peter Stewart wrote:
And Richardson was in real estate! What pray does an "emerging" market mean?

Peter Stewart

An emerging market means that prices are going up due to increased
demand.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

John Brandon

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 sep 2005 20:03:10

As well as looking like an aging hippie, now losing his hair, so letting
it go really scraggly -- and just the sort of fellow who would fall off

a motorcycle while drunk and smash his head against the cobblestones.

Maybe the hair loss was accelerated by the head-smash ...

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 sep 2005 20:46:02

As well as looking like an aging hippie, now losing his hair, so letting
it go really scraggly -- and just the sort of fellow who would fall off
a motorcycle while drunk and smash his head against the cobblestones.

DSH

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126789656.549496.199830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| > Several newsgroup members have met me and can inform you that the
person
| > from La Trobe is NOT me.
| >
| > Peter Stewart
|
| Oh well. But at least it _is_ a convenient image. In the future,
| whenever I think of you, I'll probably see this guy's picture:
| slightly stodgy, slightly dull, but always ready to bark out orders to
| underlings and social inferiors.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 sep 2005 21:23:02

Yep -- which led to the mental degeneration we see today -- in his
namesake.

DSH

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126810990.689463.188660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| >>As well as looking like an aging hippie, now losing his hair, so
letting
| it go really scraggly -- and just the sort of fellow who would fall
off
| a motorcycle while drunk and smash his head against the cobblestones.
|
| Maybe the hair loss was accelerated by the head-smash ...

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 22:48:11

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126789656.549496.199830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Several newsgroup members have met me and can inform you that the person
from La Trobe is NOT me.

Peter Stewart

Oh well. But at least it _is_ a convenient image. In the future,
whenever I think of you, I'll probably see this guy's picture:
slightly stodgy, slightly dull, but always ready to bark out orders to
underlings and social inferiors.


Your psycho-sexual problems are of no interest to the newsgroup, or to me.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 22:53:26

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126796145.326855.136190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
And Richardson was in real estate! What pray does an "emerging" market
mean?

Peter Stewart

An emerging market means that prices are going up due to increased
demand.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Not even close: a RISING market is one with prices going up, while an
EMERGING market is one that, whatever future health might be hoped or
predicted, is merely perceived to be consolidating and coming to notice by
people who are not yet involved in it.

Your abysmal comprehension and language skills will not even win an argument
with your other personalities, much less with a real person.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 23:01:56

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126810990.689463.188660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As well as looking like an aging hippie, now losing his hair, so letting
it go really scraggly -- and just the sort of fellow who would fall off
a motorcycle while drunk and smash his head against the cobblestones.

Maybe the hair loss was accelerated by the head-smash ...

I repeat: this person in the photo that so enthralls Brandon is NOT ME.

Would one of the people who can confirm this please do so?

The fantasies of the idiots who are posting on this are tedious and stupid
in the extreme.

I expect the Internet would throw up some images of people with the name
"John Brandon" too, but I am not remotely silly enough to go looking for
these or to produce them for others to gibber about.

Peter Stewart

Uriah N. Owen

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Uriah N. Owen » 16 sep 2005 03:58:27

Peter Stewart wrote:
And Richardson was in real estate! What pray does an "emerging" market mean?
Not that "many" British people ALREADY own property there, as "Uriah"
Richardson tried to claim,

How stupid can one be. Obviously, you have not done even a rudimentary
web search. Is this indicative of how you conduct your genealogy
research? - Pathetic to say the least.

<snip>

The point he keeps ignoring is that AS "URIAH" he accused me of
fabricating his alleged link to Turkey,

This only amplifies your stupidity. Why don't you come round to visit.
Fly in to Bodrum-Milas airport, take the dolmus (mini-bus) to Bodrum.
From Bodrum, take the coast dolmus to Gumbet, the next bay due west
from Bodrum. There, get off at the first stop, and ask for "Uriah

Bay" they will know whom you mean (the Turks between Gumbet and
Gümüslük speak the best English) I will be going on holiday there
next year. E-mail me if you really want to meet there and ascertain
whether or not I am "Uriah Richardson". (There are several of your
cohorts who will attest to his physical appearance).

and only under threat of exposing his friend
Welch's e-mail advice that "Uriah" WAS in Turkey did he climb down and
pretend that he HAD been there after all, only on a flying visit to inspect
his investments.

Well, if he bought into an "emerging" market while thinking it was already
established, he is clearly no better at strategic investment than he is at
medieval genealogy.

What? I put an offer on my villa in Gumbet for 25,000 pounds in 1992.
Since then it has at least quadrupled in value, and I expect that to
double in the next year or so. Maybe I can sell you that villa. It's
only one minute from the Mediterranean, takes the sun all around it,
has an excellent sea view, and is close to all local amenities.


Clearly an excellent "strategic investment". Equally clear is that
you do not do research before you jump to your conclusions. Obviously
this reflects on the integrity of your "medieval genealogy" posts.


Imagine someone who would waste his time on the Internet trying to find real
estate advertisements and occurrences of "major", as the wrong part of
speech, thinking this could justify idiocies that everyone has seen through
already!

Peter Stewart

Your statements herein only reinforce that the quotation "ignorance
can be cured, but stupidity is forever!" rings true.

<snip>

Well, Peter, there you have it. The choice is
yours! You too can become a neighbor of Uriah N. Owen in Turkey.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Cheers, Uriah

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 sep 2005 04:28:54

This is all imbecilic, false and contradictory rubbish - "Uriah" told us
himself that the name is a pseudonym, but now he absurdly pretends that the
locals in Turkey know him by it. As for "Uriah Bay" this is presumably a
geographic feature, since a person would be known as "Uriah bey" or "Uriah
beg", the Turkish for a commander. The estate of a bey is called a "beylik",
and it is by this term that directions might be given to an absentee
foreigner's property.

If "Uriah" is so familiar to the locals, how does he justify his claim that
he has never "lived" in their country? And why does he keep ignoring his
fundamental deceit in accusing me of fabricating the link to Turkey without
qualifying this in any way - that is equally false whether he had originated
the lie himself, or if Welch did, or if "Uriah" DID actually exist and was
passing through Turkey when writing to Richardson.

As for the rest of his arbitrary rubbish, it's clear who needs to do some
more research before posting.

Who would buy a book on genealogy from someone whose very lies are so
shoddy, and who can't understand English much less get a single word right
in any other language?

Peter Stewart


"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126839507.807334.98100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Peter Stewart wrote:
And Richardson was in real estate! What pray does an "emerging" market
mean?
Not that "many" British people ALREADY own property there, as "Uriah"
Richardson tried to claim,

How stupid can one be. Obviously, you have not done even a rudimentary
web search. Is this indicative of how you conduct your genealogy
research? - Pathetic to say the least.

<snip>

The point he keeps ignoring is that AS "URIAH" he accused me of
fabricating his alleged link to Turkey,

This only amplifies your stupidity. Why don't you come round to visit.
Fly in to Bodrum-Milas airport, take the dolmus (mini-bus) to Bodrum.
From Bodrum, take the coast dolmus to Gumbet, the next bay due west
from Bodrum. There, get off at the first stop, and ask for "Uriah

Bay" they will know whom you mean (the Turks between Gumbet and
Gümüslük speak the best English) I will be going on holiday there
next year. E-mail me if you really want to meet there and ascertain
whether or not I am "Uriah Richardson". (There are several of your
cohorts who will attest to his physical appearance).

and only under threat of exposing his friend
Welch's e-mail advice that "Uriah" WAS in Turkey did he climb down and
pretend that he HAD been there after all, only on a flying visit to
inspect
his investments.

Well, if he bought into an "emerging" market while thinking it was already
established, he is clearly no better at strategic investment than he is at
medieval genealogy.

What? I put an offer on my villa in Gumbet for 25,000 pounds in 1992.
Since then it has at least quadrupled in value, and I expect that to
double in the next year or so. Maybe I can sell you that villa. It's
only one minute from the Mediterranean, takes the sun all around it,
has an excellent sea view, and is close to all local amenities.


Clearly an excellent "strategic investment". Equally clear is that
you do not do research before you jump to your conclusions. Obviously
this reflects on the integrity of your "medieval genealogy" posts.


Imagine someone who would waste his time on the Internet trying to find
real
estate advertisements and occurrences of "major", as the wrong part of
speech, thinking this could justify idiocies that everyone has seen
through
already!

Peter Stewart

Your statements herein only reinforce that the quotation "ignorance
can be cured, but stupidity is forever!" rings true.

<snip>

Well, Peter, there you have it. The choice is
yours! You too can become a neighbor of Uriah N. Owen in Turkey.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Cheers, Uriah

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 sep 2005 04:41:49

"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126839507.807334.98100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

What? I put an offer on my villa in Gumbet for 25,000 pounds in 1992.
Since then it has at least quadrupled in value, and I expect that to
double in the next year or so. Maybe I can sell you that villa. It's
only one minute from the Mediterranean, takes the sun all around it,
has an excellent sea view, and is close to all local amenities.

Why exactly doesn't a British writer have the £ symbol available to him? Not
on keyboards sold in Utah, perhaps?

And I note once again (as can be seen from my last posting) that "Uriah" has
the same peculiar settings as Richardson, that prevent chevrons appearing on
each line when his e-mails are copied in replies. This is uncollegial,
obliging people to insert them manually. Why is that?

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 sep 2005 14:02:45

Oh well. But at least it _is_ a convenient image. In the future,
whenever I think of you, I'll probably see this guy's picture:
slightly stodgy, slightly dull, but always ready to bark out orders to
underlings and social inferiors.


Your psycho-sexual problems are of no interest to the newsgroup, or to me.

Peter Stewart

So making fun of someone on the basis of his looks (lack of looks)
means I have a "psycho-sexual problem"? Wow, what a novel idea! I'll
have to re-evaluate whole years of my behavior in light of this
discovery. [Makes plans to be offline for months of introspection.]

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 sep 2005 14:39:38

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126875765.687515.90170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Oh well. But at least it _is_ a convenient image. In the future,
whenever I think of you, I'll probably see this guy's picture:
slightly stodgy, slightly dull, but always ready to bark out orders to
underlings and social inferiors.


Your psycho-sexual problems are of no interest to the newsgroup, or to
me.

Peter Stewart

So making fun of someone on the basis of his looks (lack of looks)
means I have a "psycho-sexual problem"? Wow, what a novel idea! I'll
have to re-evaluate whole years of my behavior in light of this
discovery. [Makes plans to be offline for months of introspection.]

Certainly you should do this, with professional help.

Scouring the Internet for any image you can find of anyone at all who
happens to be named Peter Stewart, following your lunatic obsession with my
identity, activities and even and initials, constitutes such deeply
disturbed behaviour that it would make anyone question the unsavoury
motivations.

On top of that to be so lacking in self-awarenss, shamelessly exposing your
prurient fascination with the appearance of male strangers to the public,
and attempting to feminise others or preposterously to fantasise that they
must be homosexuals because you wish them to be, are symptoms of
psychological and sexual confusion that can't be mistaken.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 sep 2005 14:45:33

On top of that to be so lacking in self-awarenss, shamelessly exposing your
prurient fascination with the appearance of male strangers to the public,
and attempting to feminise others or preposterously to fantasise that they
must be homosexuals because you wish them to be, are symptoms of
psychological and sexual confusion that can't be mistaken.

Peter Stewart

Oh, this is too ridiculous!

I should think my "obsession" with you is *rather* less intense than
yours with DR. At least I do not attack everything (literally
everything) you say.

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 sep 2005 15:24:37

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126878333.153167.269440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
On top of that to be so lacking in self-awarenss, shamelessly exposing
your
prurient fascination with the appearance of male strangers to the public,
and attempting to feminise others or preposterously to fantasise that
they
must be homosexuals because you wish them to be, are symptoms of
psychological and sexual confusion that can't be mistaken.

Peter Stewart

Oh, this is too ridiculous!

I should think my "obsession" with you is *rather* less intense than
yours with DR. At least I do not attack everything (literally
everything) you say.

But you are doing precisely this right now - and as always you do it without
REASONING, and without regard to TRUTH.

There's nothing remotely "ridiculous" in what I said: it's an accurate and
straightforward summary of the majority of your postings over the past few
months, and everyone except yourself who has read these can see just what I
mean.

The problem with Richardson is that he is an inveterate liar. Everyone else
but you (and Hines, although he only pretends) can see straight through the
fraud. In controversy he displays the senseless, compulsive habits of a Wile
E. Coyote, only with less brainpower. And you aid and abet him, daily, as
his handy Acme machine for firing off rancorous nonsense.

Even with the benefit of reasoned criticism in COUNTLESS instances, from
many different people, you maintain the idiotic fiction that Richardson is a
fair scholar and a decent person.

You watch in silence, unwilling to support him & unable even to try this
sanely, when he commits such astounding tomfoolery as the "Uriah" imposture,
and yet you go on making any unreasoned attack that occurs to you on me, for
NO other motive except contrariness. You are peeved that I insist in holding
Richardson to ordinary standards of honesty and commonsense, as a warning to
others who come upon him here unprepared every day of the week.

And you let these feelings run away with you until you are obsessively
churning through Google to find any trace of any Peter Stewart, to satisfy
some agressive inner urges that can have nothing to do with me, a total
stranger to you.

That's deeply unhealthy, and it seems to be getting worse.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 sep 2005 15:32:30

obsessively churning through Google to find any trace of any Peter Stewart,
to satisfy some agressive inner urges that can have nothing to do with

me, a total stranger to you.

I will accept this as your admission that I am not obsessed with you.

'Nuff said, as DHS might put it.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 sep 2005 19:19:02

Indeed.

Become a frenetic, neurotic navel gazer, like Stewart.

But he's the Best Entertainer on SGM.

He really needs to buy that villa in Turkey and liberate his inner soul.

I see the beginning of a beautiful friendship between him and Uriah.

DSH

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126875765.687515.90170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| > > Oh well. But at least it _is_ a convenient image. In the future,
| > > whenever I think of you, I'll probably see this guy's picture:
| > > slightly stodgy, slightly dull, but always ready to bark out
| > > orders to underlings and social inferiors.
| >
| >
| > Your psycho-sexual problems are of no interest to the newsgroup, or
| > to me.
| >
| > Peter Stewart
|
| So making fun of someone on the basis of his looks (lack of looks)
| means I have a "psycho-sexual problem"? Wow, what a novel idea! I'll
| have to re-evaluate whole years of my behavior in light of this
| discovery. [Makes plans to be offline for months of introspection.]

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 sep 2005 23:40:02

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126881150.184424.122560@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
obsessively churning through Google to find any trace of any Peter
Stewart,
to satisfy some agressive inner urges that can have nothing to do with
me, a total stranger to you.

I will accept this as your admission that I am not obsessed with you.

'Nuff said, as DHS might put it.

No, you won't get away with vapid cop-outs like that.

I have admitted nothing of the kind misrepresented above - Brandon has been
obsessed in the full view of SGM with the identity, name, initial, sexuality
and gender of the poster Peter Stewart. He can know nothing of the actual
person - i.e. me - but that doesn't stop him making a crazy beast of himself
constantly with his fantasies. These can have nothing to do with me, but do
not in any way lessen his obvious fixation on cyber-Peter Stewart(s).

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 sep 2005 23:45:29

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B7DWe.12$aB1.1297@eagle.america.net...
Indeed.

Become a frenetic, neurotic navel gazer, like Stewart.

How on earth could you begin to justify this, if you should ever attempt to
be reasonable?

I have spent the past months trying to establish for everyone's benefit here
that posters' personalities and identities are of NO legitimate interest to
the newsgroup unless they themselves obtrude these on our attention. I have
tried to avoid discussing or even substantiating the fact of my off-list
activities, until I thought a single concession might be enough to stop the
inane jabbering of Brandon, Hines and Richardson about these irrelevant
matters.

But clearly nothing can stop them making further fools of themselves.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 sep 2005 00:44:57

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vyIWe.36$aB1.1015@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

It's fascinating to see the way Stewart tries to hide simple parameters
of his identity from folks on this newsgroup.

He must indeed have a Great Deal to Hide....

Of course people's life off USENET is relevant here.

We appraise people in their TOTALITY when we meet them and interact with
them in Real Life -- the same rules should apply here.

Many of us simply don't trust someone who is obviously so reluctant to
reveal anything about his Real Persona -- and we don't trust them in
other matters.

Many folks come to USENET and think they can get away with hiding behind
a Mask of Anonymity -- some of them won't even use their Real Names --
but hide behind a pseudonym and assume a fake persona.

No Sale....

I can fully understand why women often choose to use only their first
names.

Fair Enough....

However, Stewart, ostensibly a male, [although I often have my doubts]
thinks he has the right to hide behind a Mask of Anonymity.

What moronic babble - I use TWO names, not just one and obviously not
"Anonymous" or hidden. People here have met me, and everyone else can see
the same, and ask the same pertinent questions, on any issue that comes up
in my posts.

I have, reluctantly, shown the newsgroup that I publish under EXACTLY the
same name. The reluctance has nothing to do with hiding anything about me,
but only with the principle that people should not have to offer
"credentials" from their life outside medieval genealogy - or even from
within - beyond whatever they have to say here on topic.

Even if a "mask" WERE being worn in using the name Peter Stewart, it is
nevertheless the same visage that the world can see in any other sphere.
There is nothing further that can sensibly be proved on this score - do you
expect me to post a scan of my passport or credit cards? Have we seen your
name proved by independent evidence to belong to someone pursuing any
specific off-list activity, as the newsgroup has seen mine? Have you
presented your discharge papers from the US Navy, perhaps?

There is nothing to be legitimately appraised here about my posts except
their CONTENTS. The same should apply to everyone, barring impostors who
come along with multiple identities to fabricate support for themselves.

Hines badgers and tries to bully us with contentless messages, but that is
no reflection on me or anyone else but himself.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 sep 2005 01:29:01

Hilarious!

It's fascinating to see the way Stewart tries to hide simple parameters
of his identity from folks on this newsgroup.

He must indeed have a Great Deal to Hide....

Of course people's life off USENET is relevant here.

We appraise people in their TOTALITY when we meet them and interact with
them in Real Life -- the same rules should apply here.

Many of us simply don't trust someone who is obviously so reluctant to
reveal anything about his Real Persona -- and we don't trust them in
other matters.

Many folks come to USENET and think they can get away with hiding behind
a Mask of Anonymity -- some of them won't even use their Real Names --
but hide behind a pseudonym and assume a fake persona.

No Sale....

I can fully understand why women often choose to use only their first
names.

Fair Enough....

However, Stewart, ostensibly a male, [although I often have my doubts]
thinks he has the right to hide behind a Mask of Anonymity.

Hilarious!

And:

No Sale....

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Landfall Enterprises, Inc.

Fortem Posce Animum.

Exitus Acta Probat

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 sep 2005 01:51:01

In all fairness and equity, I should point out that Douglas Richardson
was long convinced "Peter Stewart" and I were the same person.

Actually, we ARE the same person -- it's just that we've had a falling
out.

DSH

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126914008.530969.285840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

| Peter Stewart has definitely popped his cork. He's back to claiming
| Michael Welch is Douglas Richardson. Next he'll be telling us Michael
| Welch is Leo van de Pas. Or, is that Leo van de Pas is Michael Welch?
| Who can say?
|
| Sorry, Peter, you're dead wrong. Again. GONG.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 sep 2005 02:10:57

In further fairness it should be pointed out that Richardson's delusion
about this didn't last very long.

It's one of the few imbecilities of his that the poor booby seems to have
gotten over....EVER.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fSIWe.38$aB1.1279@eagle.america.net...
In all fairness and equity, I should point out that Douglas Richardson
was long convinced "Peter Stewart" and I were the same person.

Actually, we ARE the same person -- it's just that we've had a falling
out.

DSH

royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126914008.530969.285840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

| Peter Stewart has definitely popped his cork. He's back to claiming
| Michael Welch is Douglas Richardson. Next he'll be telling us Michael
| Welch is Leo van de Pas. Or, is that Leo van de Pas is Michael Welch?
| Who can say?
|
| Sorry, Peter, you're dead wrong. Again. GONG.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Uriah N. Owen

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Uriah N. Owen » 17 sep 2005 04:56:37

Peter Stewart wrote:
This is all imbecilic, false and contradictory rubbish -

The only imbecilic, false and contradictory rubbish is your pretense to
this forum of your knowledge of the Turkish language.

"Uriah" told us
himself that the name is a pseudonym, but now he absurdly pretends that the
locals in Turkey know him by it.

How the "locals" know me is none of your business. It is patently
obvious that your knowledge of Turkish and Turkish customs is
absolutely nill. To wit:

As for "Uriah Bay" this is presumably a
geographic feature, since a person would be known as "Uriah bey" or "Uriah
beg", the Turkish for a commander. The estate of a bey is called a "beylik",
and it is by this term that directions might be given to an absentee
foreigner's property.

The words "bay" or "bey" both mean "mister", and are a term
of respect. I chose "Uriah bay", as the sight of a grizzled bearded
pom pronouncing "bey" would sound more like that of a bleating
sheep to the "locals".

Further, "beylik" does not refer to an absentee foreigner's
property, but to that of a king's property in his kingdom. And even
that terminology is extremely old, last used in the Ottoman era. Asking
for my beylik would bring howls of laughter from the "locals".

The derivational suffix -"lik" is added to a noun to form
adjectives, as in you are 'akilsiz' and your behavior is akilsizlik
personified.


If "Uriah" is so familiar to the locals, how does he justify his claim that
he has never "lived" in their country? And why does he keep ignoring his
fundamental deceit in accusing me of fabricating the link to Turkey without
qualifying this in any way - that is equally false whether he had originated
the lie himself, or if Welch did, or if "Uriah" DID actually exist and was
passing through Turkey when writing to Richardson.

No deceit. All I asked was for you to present absolute, undeniable
proof of the link to Turkey via Mr. Richardson, not just hearsay. But
that is impossible as I did not communicate to Mr. Richardson from
Turkey, as you allege. It is a lie and indicative of your total lack of
integrity.
As for the rest of his arbitrary rubbish, it's clear who needs to do some
more research before posting.

From the above, it is patently clear who.


Cheers, Uriah

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 sep 2005 06:18:58

The demented Richardson just can't help or stop himself: the clumsiness of
his lies would stagger a dead ox. Comments interspersed:

"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126929396.978892.301620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This is all imbecilic, false and contradictory rubbish -

The only imbecilic, false and contradictory rubbish is your pretense to
this forum of your knowledge of the Turkish language.

Who has "pretended" that I know the Turkish language? Not me, I merely
corrected your total & now inescapably DEMONSTRATED ignorance of ONE word. I
have spent some time in Turkey over the years, but have never learned to
speak the language fluently.

"Uriah" told us
himself that the name is a pseudonym, but now he absurdly pretends that
the
locals in Turkey know him by it.

How the "locals" know me is none of your business.

Umm, it was YOU who posted publicly about this - are we now to regard the
contents of your newsgroup posts as secret, sacred private texts, not to be
mentioned by anyone else?

It is patently obvious that your knowledge of Turkish and Turkish customs
is
absolutely nill. To wit:

As for "Uriah Bay" this is presumably a
geographic feature, since a person would be known as "Uriah bey" or
"Uriah
beg", the Turkish for a commander. The estate of a bey is called a
"beylik",
and it is by this term that directions might be given to an absentee
foreigner's property.

The words "bay" or "bey" both mean "mister", and are a term
of respect. I chose "Uriah bay", as the sight of a grizzled bearded
pom pronouncing "bey" would sound more like that of a bleating
sheep to the "locals".

The word is "bey" or "beg", NOT "bay". Under the Ottoman empire this meant
specifically a general, and came to be used for many figures of authority.
It was & is not normally used as an honorific for foreign big-wigs, or even
little-wigs - you would much more likely be called "Owen Pasha" than your
absurd fabrication "Uriah Bay", or rather "bey". And you said anyway that
the locals call you "Uriah Bay", so that the sight of yourself pronouncing
this is immaterial: YOU put the words into the mouths of Turkish people, not
your own.

Further, "beylik" does not refer to an absentee foreigner's
property, but to that of a king's property in his kingdom. And even
that terminology is extremely old, last used in the Ottoman era. Asking
for my beylik would bring howls of laughter from the "locals".

Rubbish - "beylik" as I said means the property of a bey and/or the place
where a he resides, just as "selamlik" means the men's quarters, "pashalik"
means the territory ruled by a pasha, etc. You could surely find these or
similar words, that are not open to dispute, in the glossary of just about
any book in English about the Ottoman empire.

The derivational suffix -"lik" is added to a noun to form
adjectives, as in you are 'akilsiz' and your behavior is akilsizlik
personified.


If "Uriah" is so familiar to the locals, how does he justify his claim
that
he has never "lived" in their country? And why does he keep ignoring his
fundamental deceit in accusing me of fabricating the link to Turkey
without
qualifying this in any way - that is equally false whether he had
originated
the lie himself, or if Welch did, or if "Uriah" DID actually exist and
was
passing through Turkey when writing to Richardson.

No deceit. All I asked was for you to present absolute, undeniable
proof of the link to Turkey via Mr. Richardson, not just hearsay. But
that is impossible as I did not communicate to Mr. Richardson from
Turkey, as you allege. It is a lie and indicative of your total lack of
integrity.

It isn't ME who alleges this - it was misinformation transmitted for YOU by
Mike Welch to Leo. You can't retract it now that you have been caught in the
lie, it's a matter of record. If you are asking for proof that Welch told
related the lie, ask him. If he should deny it, this would be a flagrant lie
& he knows quite well that the evidence is also in other hands anyway.

Richardson is so stupid that he went looking for tidbits of information
about Turkey on travel agents' websites, and came up with this piece of
transparent balderdash: "the Turks between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the
best English". As if the capacity to speak a second language emanates from
the soil or the water supply in small & clearly defined pockets of a large
country! How stupid does he think SGM's readers might be? Obviously "Uriah"
found some spiel about a particular holiday destination, trying to suggest
to British travellers that they would feel at home in the promoted resort.

NOTHING that Richardson has said since his first lies about "Uriah" has done
anything but make matters worse for himself, and yet he can't & evidenlty
won't stop....

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 sep 2005 07:10:07

l
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6HNWe.50209$FA3.12520@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Richardson is so stupid that he went looking for tidbits of information
about Turkey on travel agents' websites, and came up with this piece of
transparent balderdash: "the Turks between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the
best English". As if the capacity to speak a second language emanates from
the soil or the water supply in small & clearly defined pockets of a large
country! How stupid does he think SGM's readers might be? Obviously
"Uriah" found some spiel about a particular holiday destination, trying to
suggest to British travellers that they would feel at home in the promoted
resort.

I was right - here it is:

http://travelforumz.com/-quiet-life-Bod ... pict6.html

The tidbit that "Uriah" Richardson found and plagiarised, after a week of
desperate searching, comes from a blurb of 26 July 2003, from TimesOnline
Travel, where Nicholas Roe served up the tripe that I quoted above. See the
18th paragraph in particular:

"Pick any resort north of Gumbet, maybe missing out Turgutreis if big-resort
bustle bothers you, and you can't go far wrong, though bear in mind that the
resorts between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the best English. Farther north
you hit villages such as Turkbuku, aimed at the local market, and Torba, at
the top, has many English speakers."

The opriginal can be found at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 90,00.html

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 17 sep 2005 09:42:57

In message of 17 Sep, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

l
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6HNWe.50209$FA3.12520@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Richardson is so stupid that he went looking for tidbits of information
about Turkey on travel agents' websites, and came up with this piece of
transparent balderdash: "the Turks between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the
best English". As if the capacity to speak a second language emanates from
the soil or the water supply in small & clearly defined pockets of a large
country! How stupid does he think SGM's readers might be? Obviously
"Uriah" found some spiel about a particular holiday destination, trying to
suggest to British travellers that they would feel at home in the promoted
resort.

I was right - here it is:

http://travelforumz.com/-quiet-life-Bod ... pict6.html

The tidbit that "Uriah" Richardson found and plagiarised, after a week of
desperate searching, comes from a blurb of 26 July 2003, from TimesOnline
Travel, where Nicholas Roe served up the tripe that I quoted above. See the
18th paragraph in particular:

"Pick any resort north of Gumbet, maybe missing out Turgutreis if big-resort
bustle bothers you, and you can't go far wrong, though bear in mind that the
resorts between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the best English. Farther north
you hit villages such as Turkbuku, aimed at the local market, and Torba, at
the top, has many English speakers."

Good sleuthing, Peter.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 sep 2005 10:28:43

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:df6cb9ab4d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 17 Sep, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

l
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6HNWe.50209$FA3.12520@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Richardson is so stupid that he went looking for tidbits of information
about Turkey on travel agents' websites, and came up with this piece of
transparent balderdash: "the Turks between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak
the
best English". As if the capacity to speak a second language emanates
from
the soil or the water supply in small & clearly defined pockets of a
large
country! How stupid does he think SGM's readers might be? Obviously
"Uriah" found some spiel about a particular holiday destination, trying
to
suggest to British travellers that they would feel at home in the
promoted
resort.

I was right - here it is:

http://travelforumz.com/-quiet-life-Bod ... pict6.html

The tidbit that "Uriah" Richardson found and plagiarised, after a week of
desperate searching, comes from a blurb of 26 July 2003, from TimesOnline
Travel, where Nicholas Roe served up the tripe that I quoted above. See
the
18th paragraph in particular:

"Pick any resort north of Gumbet, maybe missing out Turgutreis if
big-resort
bustle bothers you, and you can't go far wrong, though bear in mind that
the
resorts between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the best English. Farther north
you hit villages such as Turkbuku, aimed at the local market, and Torba,
at
the top, has many English speakers."

Good sleuthing, Peter.

Thank you, Tim, but I'm not sure that it could be called "sleuthing", as it
took all of 20 seconds.

The dead give-aways were the absence of the £ symbol on the keyboard "Uriah"
is using, while he can nonetheless produce the character ü - obviously,
since he can't be in Britain and has told us he is not in Turkey, this was a
crude cut-&-paste job from text found on the Internet.

In his ungainly scramble to pretend that "Uriah" is familiar with Turkey,
Richardson was fool enough to change "resorts between Gumbet and Gümüslük
speak the best English" to "the Turks between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the
best English". This is typical of his poor comprehension skills: no-one with
a skerrick of brain, much less any knowledge of the place in question, would
write that. Employees in tourist resorts may well speak English, but "Uriah"
was suggesting instead that any random local accosted at a bus-stop would do
so. Inane, insane. I simply put the last part of the phrase into Google,
without any doubt that something would turn up.

I have been telling "Uriah" Richardson all week that he is digging his way
deeper into a hole of humiliation, but as usual - as always that is,
"hitherto" AND "otherwise" - he wouldn't listen.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 sep 2005 13:13:09

"Tony Ingham" <nugget10@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:432BFFFF.9010302@hotkey.net.au...
Hello Peter,

Have been following this thread with more than a little interest.

Congratulations on causing the pratfall to the biggest prat I've ever had
the misfortune to correspond with.

It's kind of you to say so, Tony - "much appreciated", as our resident smarm
artist would say.

The interest now will be to see how frank & honest Spencer Hines turns out
to be on this question: he told us not long ago that he had changed his mind
about Richardson being a fraud, because the man had allegedly reformed. But
we all see that Hines, who has been cowering in the tall grass on this
matter, can't pretend any longer that this is so.

Since he says we should all get to know each other's personalities in the
round, does he have the backbone to tell us his present opinion, I wonder?

Peter Stewart

Tony Ingham

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 17 sep 2005 13:39:02

Hello Peter,

Have been following this thread with more than a little interest.

Congratulations on causing the pratfall to the biggest prat I've ever
had the misfortune to correspond with.

This is the same blatherer who will offer his prayers for us if we
suffer ill health.

He will bend over backwards to ingratiate himself with (almost) any one
associated with F.M.G.

He also feels the pain when others are hurt sooo badly by the naughty
behaviour of yourself and Leo on the list.

And yes, He is seemingly unable to argue his case when his puny attempts
at Genealogy are challenged and placed under scrutiny.

Oh God, where is the toilet? The whole charade makes me puke.

Good on yer, Pete.

Tony Ingham





Peter Stewart wrote:

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:df6cb9ab4d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...


In message of 17 Sep, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:



l
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6HNWe.50209$FA3.12520@news-server.bigpond.net.au...



Richardson is so stupid that he went looking for tidbits of information
about Turkey on travel agents' websites, and came up with this piece of
transparent balderdash: "the Turks between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak
the
best English". As if the capacity to speak a second language emanates
from
the soil or the water supply in small & clearly defined pockets of a
large
country! How stupid does he think SGM's readers might be? Obviously
"Uriah" found some spiel about a particular holiday destination, trying
to
suggest to British travellers that they would feel at home in the
promoted
resort.


I was right - here it is:

http://travelforumz.com/-quiet-life-Bod ... pict6.html

The tidbit that "Uriah" Richardson found and plagiarised, after a week of
desperate searching, comes from a blurb of 26 July 2003, from TimesOnline
Travel, where Nicholas Roe served up the tripe that I quoted above. See
the
18th paragraph in particular:

"Pick any resort north of Gumbet, maybe missing out Turgutreis if
big-resort
bustle bothers you, and you can't go far wrong, though bear in mind that
the
resorts between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the best English. Farther north
you hit villages such as Turkbuku, aimed at the local market, and Torba,
at
the top, has many English speakers."


Good sleuthing, Peter.



Thank you, Tim, but I'm not sure that it could be called "sleuthing", as it
took all of 20 seconds.

The dead give-aways were the absence of the £ symbol on the keyboard "Uriah"
is using, while he can nonetheless produce the character ü - obviously,
since he can't be in Britain and has told us he is not in Turkey, this was a
crude cut-&-paste job from text found on the Internet.

In his ungainly scramble to pretend that "Uriah" is familiar with Turkey,
Richardson was fool enough to change "resorts between Gumbet and Gümüslük
speak the best English" to "the Turks between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the
best English". This is typical of his poor comprehension skills: no-one with
a skerrick of brain, much less any knowledge of the place in question, would
write that. Employees in tourist resorts may well speak English, but "Uriah"
was suggesting instead that any random local accosted at a bus-stop would do
so. Inane, insane. I simply put the last part of the phrase into Google,
without any doubt that something would turn up.

I have been telling "Uriah" Richardson all week that he is digging his way
deeper into a hole of humiliation, but as usual - as always that is,
"hitherto" AND "otherwise" - he wouldn't listen.

Peter Stewart





John Brandon

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 sep 2005 13:39:37

constantly with his fantasies. These can have nothing to do with me, but do
not in any way lessen his obvious fixation on cyber-Peter Stewart(s).

Vapid cop-out, indeed. Poor old thing, your brain irregularity must be
flaring up badly again.

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 sep 2005 14:35:08

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126960777.811707.290140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
constantly with his fantasies. These can have nothing to do with me, but
do
not in any way lessen his obvious fixation on cyber-Peter Stewart(s).

Vapid cop-out, indeed. Poor old thing, your brain irregularity must be
flaring up badly again.

The man who tried to suggest "Uriah" is a real person now talks about
someone else having a "brain irregularity"? And this is the judgement of a
"regular" brain, from our very own Doctor of Thinkology?

If you can't do better that that, even by your own standards it's past time
to give up.

Console yourself for the loss of "Uriah" with your very own theme song:

"I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be a-merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain!"

Peter Stewart

Uriah N. Owen

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Uriah N. Owen » 17 sep 2005 17:41:06

Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

Who has "pretended" that I know the Turkish language? Not me, I merely
corrected your total & now inescapably DEMONSTRATED ignorance of ONE word. I
have spent some time in Turkey over the years, but have never learned to
speak the language fluently.

What? YOU have "spent some time" in Turkey, and now you obviously
pretend to know the nuances of the language? Rubbish!

"Uriah" told us
himself that the name is a pseudonym, but now he absurdly pretends that
the
locals in Turkey know him by it.

How the "locals" know me is none of your business.

Umm, it was YOU who posted publicly about this - are we now to regard the
contents of your newsgroup posts as secret, sacred private texts, not to be
mentioned by anyone else?

It is patently obvious that your knowledge of Turkish and Turkish customs
is
absolutely nill. To wit:

As for "Uriah Bay" this is presumably a
geographic feature, since a person would be known as "Uriah bey" or
"Uriah
beg", the Turkish for a commander. The estate of a bey is called a
"beylik",
and it is by this term that directions might be given to an absentee
foreigner's property.

The words "bay" or "bey" both mean "mister", and are a term
of respect. I chose "Uriah bay", as the sight of a grizzled bearded
pom pronouncing "bey" would sound more like that of a bleating
sheep to the "locals".

The word is "bey" or "beg", NOT "bay". Under the Ottoman empire this meant

More rubbish! I suggest that you get a good Turkish-English dictionary,
or better yet, contact a Turk you met in Turkey, unless, of course you
didn't fraternize with the "locals".

BTW, "bay" originally meant 'a rich man' Oops! I let out some secret
information about myself, - how the "locals" address me.

specifically a general, and came to be used for many figures of authority.
It was & is not normally used as an honorific for foreign big-wigs, or even
little-wigs - you would much more likely be called "Owen Pasha" than your
absurd fabrication "Uriah Bay", or rather "bey". And you said anyway that
the locals call you "Uriah Bay", so that the sight of yourself pronouncing
this is immaterial: YOU put the words into the mouths of Turkish people, not
your own.
Further, "beylik" does not refer to an absentee foreigner's
property, but to that of a king's property in his kingdom. And even
that terminology is extremely old, last used in the Ottoman era. Asking
for my beylik would bring howls of laughter from the "locals".

Rubbish - "beylik" as I said means the property of a bey and/or the place
where a he resides, just as "selamlik" means the men's quarters, "pashalik"
means the territory ruled by a pasha, etc. You could surely find these or
similar words, that are not open to dispute, in the glossary of just about
any book in English about the Ottoman empire.


Rubbish! Again, talk to a real Turk, don't rely on texts about Turkey
written by Englishmen.

The derivational suffix -"lik" is added to a noun to form
adjectives, as in you are 'akilsiz' and your behavior is akilsizlik
personified.


If "Uriah" is so familiar to the locals, how does he justify his claim
that
he has never "lived" in their country? And why does he keep ignoring his
fundamental deceit in accusing me of fabricating the link to Turkey
without
qualifying this in any way - that is equally false whether he had
originated
the lie himself, or if Welch did, or if "Uriah" DID actually exist and
was
passing through Turkey when writing to Richardson.

No deceit. All I asked was for you to present absolute, undeniable
proof of the link to Turkey via Mr. Richardson, not just hearsay. But
that is impossible as I did not communicate to Mr. Richardson from
Turkey, as you allege. It is a lie and indicative of your total lack of
integrity.

It isn't ME who alleges this - it was misinformation transmitted for YOU by
Mike Welch to Leo. You can't retract it now that you have been caught in the
lie, it's a matter of record. If you are asking for proof that Welch told
related the lie, ask him. If he should deny it, this would be a flagrant lie
& he knows quite well that the evidence is also in other hands anyway.

What? You have maligned Mr. Welch so often on this forum. I really
think that you should admit to being duped by him.

BTW, The last time I posted from Turkey was about three years ago,

Since you are such a keen internet sleuth, check my earlier posts of
that time era. Even a 'neubie' should be able to detect the source of
the message. If you are not to moronic, perhaps you will realize that
Mr. Welch was refering to that earlier post, and NOT to recent
communications to Mr. Richardson.

Sincerely, Uncoventional Uriah

Uriah N. Owen

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Uriah N. Owen » 17 sep 2005 17:48:23

Deary me, you found me out!

Imagine that, an Englishman cutting and pasting from a bookmarked
English travel site to get the correct spelling! (since you are a
stickler for nits. P.S. I like to put in a few nits to keep the
nitpickers happy ;-)

Sherlock Stewart does it again, - and it only took him 20 seconds.

Peter Stewart wrote:
l
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6HNWe.50209$FA3.12520@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Richardson is so stupid that he went looking for tidbits of information
about Turkey on travel agents' websites, and came up with this piece of
transparent balderdash: "the Turks between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the
best English". As if the capacity to speak a second language emanates from
the soil or the water supply in small & clearly defined pockets of a large
country! How stupid does he think SGM's readers might be? Obviously
"Uriah" found some spiel about a particular holiday destination, trying to
suggest to British travellers that they would feel at home in the promoted
resort.

I was right - here it is:

http://travelforumz.com/-quiet-life-Bod ... pict6.html

The tidbit that "Uriah" Richardson found and plagiarised, after a week of
desperate searching, comes from a blurb of 26 July 2003, from TimesOnline
Travel, where Nicholas Roe served up the tripe that I quoted above. See the
18th paragraph in particular:

"Pick any resort north of Gumbet, maybe missing out Turgutreis if big-resort
bustle bothers you, and you can't go far wrong, though bear in mind that the
resorts between Gumbet and Gümüslük speak the best English. Farther north
you hit villages such as Turkbuku, aimed at the local market, and Torba, at
the top, has many English speakers."

The opriginal can be found at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 90,00.html

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Royalty for Commoners - Back on topic

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 17 sep 2005 18:02:28

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen ~

Now that we've fully cleared the air, and gotten everyone's opinion on
record about the book, Royalty for Commoners (that was the thread you
know), may I suggest we get back to medieval genealogy and stay there
permanently?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 sep 2005 23:50:39

"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126975703.879183.303660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Deary me, you found me out!

Imagine that, an Englishman cutting and pasting from a bookmarked
English travel site to get the correct spelling! (since you are a
stickler for nits. P.S. I like to put in a few nits to keep the
nitpickers happy ;-)

Sherlock Stewart does it again, - and it only took him 20 seconds.

Wile E. Coyote rides again. Only Richardson is now trying to ride on an Acme
torpedo that has already blown up under him, something that even Wile E. was
never stuborn & silly enough to do.

But Richardson has forgotten that as "Uriah" he tried to accuse me of lying
when I said he was English, claiming instead that he was merely "born a
British subject". Now suddenly he recalls that he is an "Englishman" after
all.

And he claims to have bookmarked a junk travelogue that was originally
published in 2003, although he had bought his "villa" (an Italian word) in
Turkey in 1992. After 11 years he needed to be told and keep for reference
some elementary hints for tourists....

In any case, the link I posted, and that Richardson cribbed from, is a copy
of Nicholas Roe's 2003 article copied to a discussion forum - why would
anyone "bookmark" this?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners - Back on topic

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 sep 2005 00:12:39

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126976548.915287.14340@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen ~

Now that we've fully cleared the air, and gotten everyone's opinion on
record about the book, Royalty for Commoners (that was the thread you
know), may I suggest we get back to medieval genealogy and stay there
permanently?

You have some confessing to do first - as has Mike Welch.

In your "Uriah" guise you are pretending that Welch was remembering the
claim of Robert Todd from years ago, when he said he was travelling in
Turkey for his work.

Robert Todd was exposed at that time for posting under a variety of false
names, including "Zorro" and "Nemyetski", and perhaps (but if so undoubtedly
in collusion with Richardson) "Uriah N.Owen".

However, under his own name he later made such a total fool of himself about
"fitz" that he hasn't resurfaced on SGM since.

When the matter of "Uriah" and Turkey came up recently, Richardson posted to
the newsgroup material that he SAID was written by his friend "Uriah". The
writer of this rubbish was supposed to be unable to get through to the
newsgroup directly. Richardson MUST have known where the stuff came from to
him, and Welch at the same time was telling Leo off-list that this was from
Turkey, to explain the bizarre procedure that Richardson was undertaking in
front of us all, EVEN IF THERE WAS ANOTHER "Uriah" at work.

But Robert Todd is out of touch with the newsgroup and had NOTHING to gain
from bobbing up under a stale alias ONLY to support Richardson.

The imposture is so misconceived and ill-executed that the involvement of
both is certainly possible, as I have suggested already - but there are too
many signes of Richardson at work for him to hide behind Robert Todd as the
principal liar.

Just look at the signature lines of posts with "Sincerely, Uriah" or
"Cheers, Uriah" all on one line, unusually, JUST LIKE "Best always, Douglas
Richardson". And the reply settings that unusually omit chevrons, JUST LIKE
some posts from Richardson. And the abysmal comprehension of plain English,
JUST LIKE Richardson. And the refusal to give up when his sham is blown
sky-high, JUST LIKE Richardson - Todd on the other hand had the rudimentary
sense to hide his shame away from the newsgroup after his last disgrace.

We know that Richardson takes on other cover identities for his newsgroup
activities, such as the knitting episode. He thinks that going through
anonymising servers can get him out of any difficulties, with blanket denial
as a last resort. Now he is reduced to arbitrary and phoney claims about
Turkish, as if anyone here can be fooled by this.

But too many lies have gone by that Richardson must have recognised & owed
it to the newsgoup to expose IF Robert Todd had been playing him and Welch
along, that even his attempted red-herrings can't begin to exculpate him
now.

He expects the newsgroup's indulgence for a return to medieval genealogy, so
that he can go on practicing similar frauds without admitting to this
whopper.

Obviously only a chorus of disdain can have a chance of getting through to
Richardson that he has been sprung at his imposture, and that he needs to
reform his dishonest behaviour.

One burst of reaction ought to be enough to get the message across. So, it's
over to SGM - any reader of this thread who keeps quiet about this deserves
the next go-round.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Royalty for Commoners - Back on topic

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 sep 2005 00:28:12

Fair enough. This list is full of talented people, and when we
co-operate, I think we achieve some excellent stuff. Nevertheless, I
have to say that I agree with you entirely on this one, Peter, and I
admire your tenacity in seeing it through, on behalf of the rest of us,
unpleasant though the whole thing has been.

Hopefully we will indeed now be able to get back to mediaeval genealogy
and stay there. We have much to learn from one another in that field.

Kind regards

Michael

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 sep 2005 00:31:41

"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126975266.624102.237750@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

snip

Who has "pretended" that I know the Turkish language? Not me, I merely
corrected your total & now inescapably DEMONSTRATED ignorance of ONE
word. I
have spent some time in Turkey over the years, but have never learned to
speak the language fluently.

What? YOU have "spent some time" in Turkey, and now you obviously
pretend to know the nuances of the language? Rubbish!

The meaning of "bey" (NOT "bay") is hardly a "nuance", and can be confirmed
by anyone with a dictionary.

I have been to Turkey eight times that I can recall, spending around 10
months in the country overall, since the 1970s. I'm not entirely sure of the
numbers, because for a part of several of these trips I was moving around in
remote tracts between Turkey and Syria. This has no relevance to the issues
in this thread, that were raised by the demonstrable ignorance of "Uriah".

The only posts to this newsgroup that have EVER exceeded the stupidity of
the original "Uriah" imposture are Richardson's attempts to excuse the
blunders he made in the course of it.

Peter Stewart

Leo van de Pas

Re: Royalty for Commoners - Back on topic

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 18 sep 2005 01:41:02

The air is definitely not fully cleared. The problems may have been exposed
but they have not been attended to. If Richardson wants a clean slate (don't
we all?) he is the one to clear away the problems. He seems to say "I can
kick ass, do whatever I like, I do not have to justify my behaviour"
"Everybody else has to be polite and collegial, but I do not." It is not on.

If Richardson wants to start again, and appear acceptable, he has to lay to
rest the ghosts he has created. If not, they will keep on haunting him---and
gen-med. His Off-Topic antics are so breathtakingly stupid and disgusting,
he has to own up, he cannot expect everyone to ignore his behaviour and
pretend they never happened----it is too late for that.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: Royalty for Commoners - Back on topic


Dear Ladies and Gentlemen ~

Now that we've fully cleared the air, and gotten everyone's opinion on
record about the book, Royalty for Commoners (that was the thread you
know), may I suggest we get back to medieval genealogy and stay there
permanently?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 sep 2005 02:14:01

Hilarious!

Leo must now demonstrate to all he has caught the Stewart disease too.

Tweedledum & Tweedledee.

DSH

Ginny Wagner

RE: Royalty for Commoners - Back on topic

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 18 sep 2005 02:31:02

"... As we have seen in the warrior tales, ridicule and
contempt by one's peers was worse than death, and impossible
to combat."

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 sep 2005 03:20:28

Hilarious!

So Leo has now taken to bad-mouthing people in email -- and not being
truthful about the facts.

Not Surprising -- But:

How low will these pogues sink?

I've never seen a grown man whine, wheedle and whimper the way Leo
does -- disgusting!

Leo made some very stupid remarks about Queen Victoria, Lord Randolph
Churchill and Jack The Ripper -- thoughtless, ill-considered remarks.

So I called him on them.

But Leo won't admit he was wrong -- so he retreated in abject confusion
and now whines, whimpers, wheedles and barks about it.

Entertaining Nevertheless....

Richardson is doing a good job of keeping these pogues dancing like
performing seals.

I'm beginning to think Leo bashed his head on the cobblestones too --
just like Stewart -- and we have all seen the brain damage Stewart has
suffered as a consequence.

DSH

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 sep 2005 05:30:58

This is unmistakably the voice of a pariah, who can't convince even himself
of his cur's viewpoint.

To call Leo "disgusting" is beyond absurdity. To suggest that Richardson is
some kind of prankster doing the newsgroup a service is deranged.

As always, Hines has no point to make, no substance to his failed insults,
but only sick vexation to assuage his crushed ego.

He chose to lump what he imagines to be his credibility in with
Richardson's, and he has come deservedly unstuck. There is no help for this
in bleating and lying about others.

Leo has posted a balanced and sensible analysis of SGM's present state. If
anyone wants to debate this, they can of course do so; but not by craven
avoidance of the issues.

Thanks to those who have so far spoken up about the ugly imbroglio that
Richardson has created & sustained with his "Uriah" deceit. The more who
send this message to him, privately or publicly, the clearer it will be. He
only responds to whatever threatens his ego. Logic & facts alone plainly
don't get through. Sheer numbers just might impress on him that he has
goofed badly, against his own interests, and maybe can prompt him to think
carefully before he risks this again.

As I said before, _every_ reader, no matter how averse to unpleasantness,
who doesn't make his or her opinion known to the offender can have no
complaint if another episode like this one should be provoked by his devious
behaviour and outright lies.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nu3Xe.105$aB1.1628@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

So Leo has now taken to bad-mouthing people in email -- and not being
truthful about the facts.

Not Surprising -- But:

How low will these pogues sink?

I've never seen a grown man whine, wheedle and whimper the way Leo
does -- disgusting!

Leo made some very stupid remarks about Queen Victoria, Lord Randolph
Churchill and Jack The Ripper -- thoughtless, ill-considered remarks.

So I called him on them.

But Leo won't admit he was wrong -- so he retreated in abject confusion
and now whines, whimpers, wheedles and barks about it.

Entertaining Nevertheless....

Richardson is doing a good job of keeping these pogues dancing like
performing seals.

I'm beginning to think Leo bashed his head on the cobblestones too --
just like Stewart -- and we have all seen the brain damage Stewart has
suffered as a consequence.

DSH

Gjest

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 sep 2005 10:02:54

I mentioned this "bay v bey" nonsense to some Turkish friends, who as
expected confirmed Peter's statements that there is no Turkish word
"bay"; the word is of course "bey". They remarked that anyone calling
themselves "bay" would be revealing their ignorance of Turkey rather
than the opposite.

Even a quick google search will show that the Bay of Tunis is quite a
different beast to the Bey of Tunis.

Uriah N. Owen

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Uriah N. Owen » 22 sep 2005 03:59:06

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
I mentioned this "bay v bey" nonsense to some Turkish friends, who as
expected confirmed Peter's statements that there is no Turkish word
"bay"; the word is of course "bey". They remarked that anyone calling
themselves "bay" would be revealing their ignorance of Turkey rather
than the opposite.

Even a quick google search will show that the Bay of Tunis is quite a
different beast to the Bey of Tunis.

More unadulterated rubbish! Sherlock Michael presents hearsay. Tell
your Turkish friends that there is no excuse not to read Turkish
newspapers, they have been on-line for some time now.

You realize that this deeply undermines whatever integrity you and that
other Sherlock, Stewart, have left on this forum. This unequivacally
proves BOTH of you of total falsehood and downright LIES TO THIS FORUM!
To wit:

Here is a Turkish web site that even you should have checked out
yourself, if you were a serious researcher: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr. It
is a Turkish newspaper (in Turkish) that presents absolute AND
independent proof of the existence of the word "bay" AND that you
both LIE!

Simply follow the left hand side to the search block, enter "bay",
and click the radio button (marked "ARA") and see what comes up.
The FIRST article is about the late Prime Minister Ecevit, and reads as
follows (and for the benefit of both Sherlocks, I have bolded the
instances of "BAY". -- Its to bad the internet does not post in
braille)

Quote:
"Yeter artik BAY Ecevit BÜLENT Ecevit'e yakin zamana kadar hep
saygi duydum. Saygimin ilk nedeni, 80'e ulasan yasi, yani pek
çogumuzun büyügü olmasi. Ikincisi, siyasette bugüne kadar
egrisiyle ve dogrusuyla yaptigi hizmetler. Üçüncüsü ise
bugünkü üçlü koalisyon hükümetini ilimli, saygin ve
uzlasmaci kisiligi ile üç yildan beri ayakta tutmus olmasi.

Ama Ecevit, son zamanlarda büyük yanlislar içerisinde. Kendi
kendine onulmaz zarar vermeye basladi.

Kisisel zarari kendi bilecegi istir. Ama isin ucu artik
Türkiye'ye, yani hepimize dokunmaya ve acitmaya basladi.

Bu durumda sessiz kalmak mümkün degil.

Her insan hasta olabilir. Üzülürüz, en kisa zamanda iyilesmesini
dileriz. Ama hasta olan kimse bir ülkenin basbakani ise ve ilerisi
tamamen belirsiz kaliyorsa, o zaman birileri ''dur bakalim''
derler.

Kendisi bir aydan bu yana hasta. Devletin en önemli toplantilarina
katilamiyor, kimseyle konusmuyor, iliski kurmuyor.

Bu konularda BAY ve Bayan Ecevit'i burada birkaç kez ve haddim
olmayarak efendice, kibarca uyardim.

Kendilerine biraz da sakayla karisik ''mektuplar'' yazdim.
Yapmasi gereken en akilli is, iyilesinceye kadar basbakanlik
görevini vekáleten bir baskasina birakmakti.

Bu elbette ki DSP'den biri olacakti.

Bu asamada çok yumusak bir geçis yapmasi da mümkündü.
Basbakan Yardimcisi Hüsamettin Özkan DSP'li idi. Özkan'i o
göreve BAY Ecevit getirmisti.

Ama Bay ve Bayan Ecevit'te herkese karsi öyle bir güvensizlik
olusmus ki, Özkan ya da bir baska partiliye bu görevi vermeye
elleri ayaklari varmadi." Unquote!

As I said, "Bay" is used as a term of respect!

P.S. to Sherlock Stewart: I bookmarked "timesonline.co.uk", NOT a
junk travelogue as you hastily posted on the 17th. I simply remembered
that they had the article in their on-line archive. You realllllly
should spend more than 20 seconds for your research, "old fruit"

P.P.S. Give it a rest. There is nothing further to say or prove,
except for some "nits" that I intentionally leave in for the
nitpickers and trained seals to catch!

P.P.P.S. I know that you won't, so go ahead and make a complete fool of
yourself.

Cheers, Uriah

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 sep 2005 04:34:01

O dear, Uriah Richardson is even more stubbornly stupid than we all thought,
and STILL he can't give up this petard that he is hoist with.

He told us he was called "Uriah Bay" by the locals in Turkey, and now he
offers us "Bay Ecevit" as proof of this.

Note that "Bay" is placed before the man's name, not after. This is not the
normal spelling in Turkish, which is why the first example found in the
search offered to the newsgroups dates from as far back as June 2002.

"Bay" is sometimes written, but this does NOT have a different pronunciation
from the correct spelling "bey", as Uriah also tried to misrepresent.

"Bay ve Bayan Ecevit" is simply "Mr and Mrs Ecevit". However, this is not
the conventional spelling of the masculine word - bey and bayan are the
usual forms.

Try an online dictionary if you are in any doubt:

http://www.hazar.com/

will show that "bey" means "gentleman" or "Mr" (used after the first name)
and "bayan" means "lady", while "bay" means "1.koy, korfez; 2.defne;
3.horse".

I wonder which of those the locals had in mind when naming "Uriah".....

Peter Stewart



"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1127357946.907128.269240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
I mentioned this "bay v bey" nonsense to some Turkish friends, who as
expected confirmed Peter's statements that there is no Turkish word
"bay"; the word is of course "bey". They remarked that anyone calling
themselves "bay" would be revealing their ignorance of Turkey rather
than the opposite.

Even a quick google search will show that the Bay of Tunis is quite a
different beast to the Bey of Tunis.

More unadulterated rubbish! Sherlock Michael presents hearsay. Tell
your Turkish friends that there is no excuse not to read Turkish
newspapers, they have been on-line for some time now.

You realize that this deeply undermines whatever integrity you and that
other Sherlock, Stewart, have left on this forum. This unequivacally
proves BOTH of you of total falsehood and downright LIES TO THIS FORUM!
To wit:

Here is a Turkish web site that even you should have checked out
yourself, if you were a serious researcher: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr. It
is a Turkish newspaper (in Turkish) that presents absolute AND
independent proof of the existence of the word "bay" AND that you
both LIE!

Simply follow the left hand side to the search block, enter "bay",
and click the radio button (marked "ARA") and see what comes up.
The FIRST article is about the late Prime Minister Ecevit, and reads as
follows (and for the benefit of both Sherlocks, I have bolded the
instances of "BAY". -- Its to bad the internet does not post in
braille)

Quote:
"Yeter artik BAY Ecevit BÜLENT Ecevit'e yakin zamana kadar hep
saygi duydum. Saygimin ilk nedeni, 80'e ulasan yasi, yani pek
çogumuzun büyügü olmasi. Ikincisi, siyasette bugüne kadar
egrisiyle ve dogrusuyla yaptigi hizmetler. Üçüncüsü ise
bugünkü üçlü koalisyon hükümetini ilimli, saygin ve
uzlasmaci kisiligi ile üç yildan beri ayakta tutmus olmasi.

Ama Ecevit, son zamanlarda büyük yanlislar içerisinde. Kendi
kendine onulmaz zarar vermeye basladi.

Kisisel zarari kendi bilecegi istir. Ama isin ucu artik
Türkiye'ye, yani hepimize dokunmaya ve acitmaya basladi.

Bu durumda sessiz kalmak mümkün degil.

Her insan hasta olabilir. Üzülürüz, en kisa zamanda iyilesmesini
dileriz. Ama hasta olan kimse bir ülkenin basbakani ise ve ilerisi
tamamen belirsiz kaliyorsa, o zaman birileri ''dur bakalim''
derler.

Kendisi bir aydan bu yana hasta. Devletin en önemli toplantilarina
katilamiyor, kimseyle konusmuyor, iliski kurmuyor.

Bu konularda BAY ve Bayan Ecevit'i burada birkaç kez ve haddim
olmayarak efendice, kibarca uyardim.

Kendilerine biraz da sakayla karisik ''mektuplar'' yazdim.
Yapmasi gereken en akilli is, iyilesinceye kadar basbakanlik
görevini vekáleten bir baskasina birakmakti.

Bu elbette ki DSP'den biri olacakti.

Bu asamada çok yumusak bir geçis yapmasi da mümkündü.
Basbakan Yardimcisi Hüsamettin Özkan DSP'li idi. Özkan'i o
göreve BAY Ecevit getirmisti.

Ama Bay ve Bayan Ecevit'te herkese karsi öyle bir güvensizlik
olusmus ki, Özkan ya da bir baska partiliye bu görevi vermeye
elleri ayaklari varmadi." Unquote!

As I said, "Bay" is used as a term of respect!

P.S. to Sherlock Stewart: I bookmarked "timesonline.co.uk", NOT a
junk travelogue as you hastily posted on the 17th. I simply remembered
that they had the article in their on-line archive. You realllllly
should spend more than 20 seconds for your research, "old fruit"

P.P.S. Give it a rest. There is nothing further to say or prove,
except for some "nits" that I intentionally leave in for the
nitpickers and trained seals to catch!

P.P.P.S. I know that you won't, so go ahead and make a complete fool of
yourself.

Cheers, Uriah

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 sep 2005 04:49:23

By the way, all those readers who failed to speak up before about
Richardson's abuses of this newsgroup don't have to wait for another episode
after all - they can enjoy the fruits of their silence here and now, in
Uriah's idiotic persistence.

Peter Stewart



"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1127357946.907128.269240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
I mentioned this "bay v bey" nonsense to some Turkish friends, who as
expected confirmed Peter's statements that there is no Turkish word
"bay"; the word is of course "bey". They remarked that anyone calling
themselves "bay" would be revealing their ignorance of Turkey rather
than the opposite.

Even a quick google search will show that the Bay of Tunis is quite a
different beast to the Bey of Tunis.

More unadulterated rubbish! Sherlock Michael presents hearsay. Tell
your Turkish friends that there is no excuse not to read Turkish
newspapers, they have been on-line for some time now.

You realize that this deeply undermines whatever integrity you and that
other Sherlock, Stewart, have left on this forum. This unequivacally
proves BOTH of you of total falsehood and downright LIES TO THIS FORUM!
To wit:

Here is a Turkish web site that even you should have checked out
yourself, if you were a serious researcher: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr. It
is a Turkish newspaper (in Turkish) that presents absolute AND
independent proof of the existence of the word "bay" AND that you
both LIE!

Simply follow the left hand side to the search block, enter "bay",
and click the radio button (marked "ARA") and see what comes up.
The FIRST article is about the late Prime Minister Ecevit, and reads as
follows (and for the benefit of both Sherlocks, I have bolded the
instances of "BAY". -- Its to bad the internet does not post in
braille)

Quote:
"Yeter artik BAY Ecevit BÜLENT Ecevit'e yakin zamana kadar hep
saygi duydum. Saygimin ilk nedeni, 80'e ulasan yasi, yani pek
çogumuzun büyügü olmasi. Ikincisi, siyasette bugüne kadar
egrisiyle ve dogrusuyla yaptigi hizmetler. Üçüncüsü ise
bugünkü üçlü koalisyon hükümetini ilimli, saygin ve
uzlasmaci kisiligi ile üç yildan beri ayakta tutmus olmasi.

Ama Ecevit, son zamanlarda büyük yanlislar içerisinde. Kendi
kendine onulmaz zarar vermeye basladi.

Kisisel zarari kendi bilecegi istir. Ama isin ucu artik
Türkiye'ye, yani hepimize dokunmaya ve acitmaya basladi.

Bu durumda sessiz kalmak mümkün degil.

Her insan hasta olabilir. Üzülürüz, en kisa zamanda iyilesmesini
dileriz. Ama hasta olan kimse bir ülkenin basbakani ise ve ilerisi
tamamen belirsiz kaliyorsa, o zaman birileri ''dur bakalim''
derler.

Kendisi bir aydan bu yana hasta. Devletin en önemli toplantilarina
katilamiyor, kimseyle konusmuyor, iliski kurmuyor.

Bu konularda BAY ve Bayan Ecevit'i burada birkaç kez ve haddim
olmayarak efendice, kibarca uyardim.

Kendilerine biraz da sakayla karisik ''mektuplar'' yazdim.
Yapmasi gereken en akilli is, iyilesinceye kadar basbakanlik
görevini vekáleten bir baskasina birakmakti.

Bu elbette ki DSP'den biri olacakti.

Bu asamada çok yumusak bir geçis yapmasi da mümkündü.
Basbakan Yardimcisi Hüsamettin Özkan DSP'li idi. Özkan'i o
göreve BAY Ecevit getirmisti.

Ama Bay ve Bayan Ecevit'te herkese karsi öyle bir güvensizlik
olusmus ki, Özkan ya da bir baska partiliye bu görevi vermeye
elleri ayaklari varmadi." Unquote!

As I said, "Bay" is used as a term of respect!

P.S. to Sherlock Stewart: I bookmarked "timesonline.co.uk", NOT a
junk travelogue as you hastily posted on the 17th. I simply remembered
that they had the article in their on-line archive. You realllllly
should spend more than 20 seconds for your research, "old fruit"

P.P.S. Give it a rest. There is nothing further to say or prove,
except for some "nits" that I intentionally leave in for the
nitpickers and trained seals to catch!

P.P.P.S. I know that you won't, so go ahead and make a complete fool of
yourself.

Cheers, Uriah

Gjest

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2005 07:31:52

The artist known as Uriah N. Owen wrote:

More unadulterated rubbish! Sherlock Michael presents hearsay. Tell
your Turkish friends that there is no excuse not to read Turkish
newspapers, they have been on-line for some time now.
You realize that this deeply undermines whatever integrity you and that
other Sherlock, Stewart, have left on this forum. This unequivacally
proves BOTH of you of total falsehood and downright LIES TO THIS >FORUM!

Dear 'Uriah'~

It is not necessary to be abusive, or misrepresent another poster's
statements. If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do),

I recommend you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval
genealogy, and to make friends.

Best wishes, Michael

PS While you are struggling with dictionaries here, you may also wish
to look up the word "hearsay" and discover what it means.

John Brandon

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 22 sep 2005 13:54:01

Peter Stewart wrote:
By the way, all those readers who failed to speak up before about
Richardson's abuses of this newsgroup don't have to wait for another episode
after all - they can enjoy the fruits of their silence here and now, in
Uriah's idiotic persistence.

You seem not to realize that this lousy thread would not continue
without your own, kind contributions to it ...

Gjest

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2005 15:04:01

In a message dated 9/21/05 10:55:56 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

By the way, all those readers who failed to speak up before about
Richardson's abuses of this newsgroup don't have to wait for another
episode
after all


Having to waste time reading your CRAP is the worst thing about this news
group now, Peter Stewart.

Jno

John Brandon

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 22 sep 2005 15:16:49

Having to waste time reading your CRAP is the worst thing about this news
group now, Peter Stewart.

Jno

I suspect that many people would agree with this, despite Petey's
stated noble intentions of defending the innocent from DR's wicked
wiles.

Gjest

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2005 16:22:28

John Brandon wrote:
Having to waste time reading your CRAP is the worst thing about this news
group now, Peter Stewart.

Jno


Perhaps you could try diverting attention and encouraging others by
posting something about mediaeval genealogy, Jno; that's what we're
here for. Mr Stewart (and Mr Brandon) do so frequently.

Gjest

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2005 16:59:25

Having to waste time reading your CRAP is the worst thing about this news
group now, Peter Stewart.

Jno

I don't know why google.groups attributed that to Mr Brandon; it was
of, course, the contribution of regular poster Jno.

MAR

Tony Ingham

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 23 sep 2005 02:53:01

And, indeed, yours as well John! And mine too, I suppose.

I think all those who write in about the loose threads secretly read
these 'flame wars' and get a wee thrill from them. A bit like not
admitting to looking at the Page 3 girl in the British tabloids.

Tony Ingham


John Brandon wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:


By the way, all those readers who failed to speak up before about
Richardson's abuses of this newsgroup don't have to wait for another episode
after all - they can enjoy the fruits of their silence here and now, in
Uriah's idiotic persistence.



You seem not to realize that this lousy thread would not continue
without your own, kind contributions to it ...




D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 sep 2005 03:16:01

Perceptive...

DSH

"Tony Ingham" <nugget10@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:433351AF.1090706@hotkey.net.au...

| And, indeed, yours as well John! And mine too, I suppose.
|
| I think all those who write in about the loose threads secretly read
| these 'flame wars' and get a wee thrill from them. A bit like not
| admitting to looking at the Page 3 girl in the British tabloids.
|
| Tony Ingham

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 sep 2005 03:27:12

"Tony Ingham" <nugget10@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:433351AF.1090706@hotkey.net.au...
And, indeed, yours as well John! And mine too, I suppose.

I think all those who write in about the loose threads secretly read these
'flame wars' and get a wee thrill from them. A bit like not admitting to
looking at the Page 3 girl in the British tabloids.

Quite so, Tony - Brandon seems to imagine there is an arbitrary point beyond
which 'Uriah' should be left to lie in peace.

But of course most people who indulge themselves in this way are not as
blitheringly stupid as 'Jno Kent', who tells us he suffers from "having to
waste time reading" them. Evidently this dolt hasn't discovered how NOT to
open messages, much less how not to read through them, and instead has
become addicted to inconveniencing himself & then complaining about it.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 sep 2005 14:07:41

Quite so, Tony - Brandon seems to imagine there is an arbitrary point beyond
which 'Uriah' should be left to lie in peace.

I not only imagine but know so -- and that point was passed many days,
if not weeks, ago.

Who cares if Doug posed as Uriah? What difference does it make? I
feel sure that others have done the same thing from time to time when
it suited them.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 23 sep 2005 14:35:29

John Brandon wrote:
Who cares if Doug posed as Uriah? What difference does it make? I
feel sure that others have done the same thing from time to time when
it suited them.

Dear John ~

Who cares if Douglas has posed as Uriah? Ummmm .... I care, that's
who. I'm not Uriah N. Owen, have never been Uriah N. Owen, and, unless
lightening strikes me, and I wake up in someone else's body, I will
never be Uriah N. Owen. Uriah is smarter than I am, anyway. And, a
much better writer. I'm sure he's also much more handsome than I.

For those who are curious about the man, I know for a fact that Uriah
N. Owen visits Turkey and owns property there. I've been invited to
stay in Turkey as his guest. I first corresponded with Uriah a few
years back. He and I share a common descent from the Gilbert family of
colonial Connecticut. Witch Lydia Gilbert is a member of this family.
If you wish to know anything more, you may contact Mr. Owen at his
e-mail address.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

John Brandon

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 sep 2005 14:42:47

Douglas,

I didn't say you necessarily HAD posed as Uriah ... I said, "Who cares
IF Doug posed as Uriah?" I.E., I'm very bored by the whole thing,
inflated and hideously belabored by PMS as it has been ...

Gjest

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 sep 2005 16:19:02

In a message dated 9/22/05 9:41:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

But of course most people who indulge themselves in this way are not as
blitheringly stupid as 'Jno Kent'

Peter, if you weren't so stupid you would cut out the crap and stick to
genealogy. You are a waste of space.

Jno

Gjest

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 sep 2005 17:28:33

JKent10581@aol.com schreef:

In a message dated 9/22/05 9:41:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

But of course most people who indulge themselves in this way are not as
blitheringly stupid as 'Jno Kent'

Peter, if you weren't so stupid you would cut out the crap and stick to
genealogy. You are a waste of space.

Jno

What would you call this? An irrelevant remark or simply a wish to see
something back on the internet that you wrote?

Hans Vogels

Uriah N. Owen

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Uriah N. Owen » 23 sep 2005 20:58:50

Peter Stewart wrote:

I see that you took my advice, and made a complete fool of
yourself. ;-)

O dear, Uriah Richardson is even more stubbornly stupid than we all thought,
and STILL he can't give up this petard that he is hoist with.

He told us he was called "Uriah Bay" by the locals in Turkey, and now he
offers us "Bay Ecevit" as proof of this.

Note that "Bay" is placed before the man's name, not after. This is not the
normal spelling in Turkish, which is why the first example found in the
search offered to the newsgroups dates from as far back as June 2002.

Total rubbish!!!!!, and BTW,

Congratulations Sherlock, You actually found the "nit" to which I
was referring in my other posts!

-- Mind you it only took you about eight days to find that out. (I
guess the penny drops slowly for some! - see below:)

"Bay" is sometimes written, but this does NOT have a different pronunciation
from the correct spelling "bey", as Uriah also tried to misrepresent.

"Bay ve Bayan Ecevit" is simply "Mr and Mrs Ecevit". However, this is not
the conventional spelling of the masculine word - bey and bayan are the
usual forms.


So! you now profess to know Turkish better than Turkish journalists!
Why don't you write an editorial to the Turkish newspapers - (You ARE
an editor aren't you? AND you now have the URL !)

Try an online dictionary if you are in any doubt:

http://www.hazar.com/

GAG! Stewart , who CLAIMS to have spent about 10 months in Turkey
obviously did not acquire a decent dictionary! AND, now trying to tout
an on-line version that is painfully lacking borders on the pathetic.

will show that "bey" means "gentleman" or "Mr" (used after the first name)
and "bayan" means "lady", while "bay" means "1.koy, korfez; 2.defne;
3.horse".

BTW, horse in Turkish is "beygir" - Let me repeat that for the
blind: bEygir !

I wonder which of those the locals had in mind when naming "Uriah".....

The "locals" must be calling you an "Esek" by now.

<snip>

Peter Stewart


Cheers, Uriah

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 sep 2005 01:01:28

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127480861.299765.252940@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quite so, Tony - Brandon seems to imagine there is an arbitrary point
beyond
which 'Uriah' should be left to lie in peace.

I not only imagine but know so -- and that point was passed many days,
if not weeks, ago.

Who cares if Doug posed as Uriah? What difference does it make? I
feel sure that others have done the same thing from time to time when
it suited them.

Is there NO limit to your thickness?

Even granting your absurd idea that a little of this kind of fraud is
acceptable behaviour, HE'S STILL DOING IT, and using it as a cover to accuse
OTHERS OF LYING.

The difference it makes is that Richardson comes here to entrap some people
into writing his books and others into buying them - and he is prepared to
use any deceitful ploy to help him get his way. He abuses anyone who won't
co-operate.

In these circumstances SILENCE IS COLLUSION. And most of the newsgroup's
readers are playing his game by not explicitly refusing to play it.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 sep 2005 01:09:41

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127482529.352404.115300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Brandon wrote:

Who cares if Doug posed as Uriah? What difference does it make? I
feel sure that others have done the same thing from time to time when
it suited them.

Dear John ~

Who cares if Douglas has posed as Uriah? Ummmm .... I care, that's
who. I'm not Uriah N. Owen, have never been Uriah N. Owen, and, unless
lightening strikes me, and I wake up in someone else's body, I will
never be Uriah N. Owen. Uriah is smarter than I am, anyway. And, a
much better writer. I'm sure he's also much more handsome than I.

For those who are curious about the man, I know for a fact that Uriah
N. Owen visits Turkey and owns property there. I've been invited to
stay in Turkey as his guest. I first corresponded with Uriah a few
years back. He and I share a common descent from the Gilbert family of
colonial Connecticut. Witch Lydia Gilbert is a member of this family.
If you wish to know anything more, you may contact Mr. Owen at his
e-mail address.

That goes straight through to Richardson in SLC.

If Owen were a real person who truly visits Turkey, and this were known to
Richardson who had passed the "fact" on to Welch, why exactly did Richardson
keep quiet when Owen was implying this to be false and accusing me of
fabricating it?

Why if he tells the truth did he first deny being English, yet challenge me
to prove this, and then describe himself as an "Englishman"?

Richardson selectively ignores the blatant errors he made in the course of
this imposture, thinking in his disordered mind that since most newsgroup
readers haven't spoken up they must still believe him.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 sep 2005 01:10:22

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127482967.316340.47020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas,

I didn't say you necessarily HAD posed as Uriah ... I said, "Who cares
IF Doug posed as Uriah?" I.E., I'm very bored by the whole thing,
inflated and hideously belabored by PMS as it has been ...

What a weasel word is "necessarily" in this context....

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 sep 2005 01:11:25

<JKent10581@aol.com> wrote in message news:8.70d4a6af.3065689e@aol.com...
In a message dated 9/22/05 9:41:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

But of course most people who indulge themselves in this way are not as
blitheringly stupid as 'Jno Kent'

Peter, if you weren't so stupid you would cut out the crap and stick to
genealogy. You are a waste of space.

So stop reading my posts. If you need remedial help to achieve this, I'm
sure it is available in your area.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 sep 2005 01:18:37

This latest from "Uriah" is incomprehensibly moronic.

In order to give readers the opportunity to check what I said a link to an
online dictionary is the obvious method.

If anyone requires confirmation that "Uriah Bay" does not accord with
idiomatic usage in Turkey, they need only try a Google search for the famous
personage that Uriah found in his own desperate Googling: "Ecevit bey"
(about 279 results, with the words in context exactly as in the search
string) and then "Ecevit Bay" (about 31 results, with a variety of
punctuation marks between the two words).

Peter Stewart


"Uriah N. Owen" <U_N_Owen@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1127505530.895957.131460@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

I see that you took my advice, and made a complete fool of
yourself. ;-)

O dear, Uriah Richardson is even more stubbornly stupid than we all
thought,
and STILL he can't give up this petard that he is hoist with.

He told us he was called "Uriah Bay" by the locals in Turkey, and now he
offers us "Bay Ecevit" as proof of this.

Note that "Bay" is placed before the man's name, not after. This is not
the
normal spelling in Turkish, which is why the first example found in the
search offered to the newsgroups dates from as far back as June 2002.

Total rubbish!!!!!, and BTW,

Congratulations Sherlock, You actually found the "nit" to which I
was referring in my other posts!

-- Mind you it only took you about eight days to find that out. (I
guess the penny drops slowly for some! - see below:)

"Bay" is sometimes written, but this does NOT have a different
pronunciation
from the correct spelling "bey", as Uriah also tried to misrepresent.

"Bay ve Bayan Ecevit" is simply "Mr and Mrs Ecevit". However, this is not
the conventional spelling of the masculine word - bey and bayan are the
usual forms.


So! you now profess to know Turkish better than Turkish journalists!
Why don't you write an editorial to the Turkish newspapers - (You ARE
an editor aren't you? AND you now have the URL !)

Try an online dictionary if you are in any doubt:

http://www.hazar.com/

GAG! Stewart , who CLAIMS to have spent about 10 months in Turkey
obviously did not acquire a decent dictionary! AND, now trying to tout
an on-line version that is painfully lacking borders on the pathetic.

will show that "bey" means "gentleman" or "Mr" (used after the first
name)
and "bayan" means "lady", while "bay" means "1.koy, korfez; 2.defne;
3.horse".

BTW, horse in Turkish is "beygir" - Let me repeat that for the
blind: bEygir !

I wonder which of those the locals had in mind when naming "Uriah".....

The "locals" must be calling you an "Esek" by now.

snip

Peter Stewart


Cheers, Uriah

Gjest

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 sep 2005 15:52:49

Peter, if you weren't so stupid you would cut out the crap and stick to
genealogy. You are a waste of space.

Jno

I'm struggling to find the mediaeval genealogy content in this post -
is it hidden by means of 'anagrams'?

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 25 sep 2005 02:17:01

I have an idea that "crap" is an anagram for "commoners, royals and pariahs"

Merilyn

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

From: mjcar@btinternet.com
Date: 09/25/05 00:26:55
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royalty For Commoners

Peter, if you weren't so stupid you would cut out the crap and stick to
genealogy. You are a waste of space.

Jno

I'm struggling to find the mediaeval genealogy content in this post -
is it hidden by means of 'anagrams'?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»