""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:027201c5b048$d7e77010$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| Dear Judy,
|
| Over the years I have said several times that, according to me, there
| is no such thing as a dumb question (of course there are, but that is
| a different story).
----------------------------
Leo Babbles On....
Very sad to observe....
Leonine Gibberish...
Hot Toddy & Long Lie-Down, Leo -- You Are Babbling Again --
Contradicting Yourself & Looking Senile.
Vide supra.
Of COURSE there are Dumb Questions, Leo.
I'm really beginning to fear Alzheimer's Disease in your case -- coupled
with a severe case of Tender Violet Syndrome -- rampant.
The Free Market of Ideas is not a place for Tender Violets.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
And do see your doctor -- I'm serious.
Your friend, who is worried about you...
Spencer
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:027201c5b048$d7e77010$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| Dear Judy,
|
| Over the years I have said several times that, according to me, there
| is no such thing as a dumb question (of course there are, but that is
| a different story).
Leo van de Pas -- Sad
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Leo van de Pas -- Sad
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:028201c5b056$19b9a500$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| -- Censorship and killfiles aren't they the same in a way?
------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense!
Of course Censorship and "Killfiles" are not the same thing.
Leo is TRULY ignorant if he believes that -- and apparently he does --
vide supra -- straight from the horse's mouth.
No WONDER Leo Doesn't Understand Free Speech.
| Why is Spencer Hines in my killfile? I dared mention a book existed
| and I dared mention one aspect of that book. What happened? I
| was hounded because I was that idiot who needed to provide proof
| what this book said. He became rediculously [sic] nasty as though I
| had written the book....
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
-----------------------------------------
Nonsense Again!
Leo HIMSELF made malicious, ill-considered and lame-brained accusations
against Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston Churchill's father, against
Queen Victoria and against her grandson -- Albert, Duke of Clarence --
concerning the Jack The Ripper murders in Whitechapel in 1888.
Leo spouted gibberish, unproven accusations -- and then wilted and
turned angry when challenged on the facts and the evidence.
When I challenged Leo to provide some PROOF for his asinine
accusations -- he went ballistic and threw a hissy fit.
Bad Show!
Leo couldn't back up his loony accusations with EVIDENCE -- so he was
pulverized and shown up as a fraud and a poseur in the Free Market of
Ideas.
But since Leo is a Tender Violet, unsuited to the rough and tumble of
the Free Market of Ideas -- all he could do in response was to:
1. Throw an immediate Hissy Fit.
2. Retreat in Confusion and Tears.
3. Run & Hide Behind A "Killfile" -- Actually An "I Can't Compete
File" -- "So I'm Going To Stick Bananas In My Ears" File.
Hilarious!
Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this.
And he STILL won't admit what he did was a thoroughly cheap shot and
dead WRONG.
D. Spencer Hines
John 5:14
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
news:028201c5b056$19b9a500$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| -- Censorship and killfiles aren't they the same in a way?
------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense!
Of course Censorship and "Killfiles" are not the same thing.
Leo is TRULY ignorant if he believes that -- and apparently he does --
vide supra -- straight from the horse's mouth.
No WONDER Leo Doesn't Understand Free Speech.
| Why is Spencer Hines in my killfile? I dared mention a book existed
| and I dared mention one aspect of that book. What happened? I
| was hounded because I was that idiot who needed to provide proof
| what this book said. He became rediculously [sic] nasty as though I
| had written the book....
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
-----------------------------------------
Nonsense Again!
Leo HIMSELF made malicious, ill-considered and lame-brained accusations
against Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston Churchill's father, against
Queen Victoria and against her grandson -- Albert, Duke of Clarence --
concerning the Jack The Ripper murders in Whitechapel in 1888.
Leo spouted gibberish, unproven accusations -- and then wilted and
turned angry when challenged on the facts and the evidence.
When I challenged Leo to provide some PROOF for his asinine
accusations -- he went ballistic and threw a hissy fit.
Bad Show!
Leo couldn't back up his loony accusations with EVIDENCE -- so he was
pulverized and shown up as a fraud and a poseur in the Free Market of
Ideas.
But since Leo is a Tender Violet, unsuited to the rough and tumble of
the Free Market of Ideas -- all he could do in response was to:
1. Throw an immediate Hissy Fit.
2. Retreat in Confusion and Tears.
3. Run & Hide Behind A "Killfile" -- Actually An "I Can't Compete
File" -- "So I'm Going To Stick Bananas In My Ears" File.
Hilarious!
Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this.
And he STILL won't admit what he did was a thoroughly cheap shot and
dead WRONG.
D. Spencer Hines
John 5:14
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Leo van de Pas -- Sad
Comments interspersed:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3KdSe.729$Bv2.4665@eagle.america.net...
I suppose Leo meant that killfiling is effectively a personal form of
censorship, one-to-one rather than practiced in a public sphere.
<snip>
For those of us with better memories than Hines, or unlike him having the
sense & honesty to check our recall instead of spouting shameless
falsehoods, the fact is that Leo made no such accusation against Randolph
Churchill: he merely reported having read a book that contained such a
charge.
This can be verified from his post on the subject, at
http://tinyurl.com/au9x9
and from a thread five years before when he reported on the same book
(without demur from Hines) at
http://tinyurl.com/b29gk
stating only that it seemed 'possible' and then agreeing with Jean Coeur de
Lapin's opinion objecting to 'perfectly insane speculations of "possible
history"' that did not 'really belong on this thread'.
Hardly the frame of mind on Leo's part that Hines now seeks to represent to
the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3KdSe.729$Bv2.4665@eagle.america.net...
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:028201c5b056$19b9a500$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| -- Censorship and killfiles aren't they the same in a way?
------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense!
Of course Censorship and "Killfiles" are not the same thing.
Leo is TRULY ignorant if he believes that -- and apparently he does --
vide supra -- straight from the horse's mouth.
I suppose Leo meant that killfiling is effectively a personal form of
censorship, one-to-one rather than practiced in a public sphere.
<snip>
Leo HIMSELF made malicious, ill-considered and lame-brained accusations
against Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston Churchill's father, against
Queen Victoria and against her grandson -- Albert, Duke of Clarence --
concerning the Jack The Ripper murders in Whitechapel in 1888.
Leo spouted gibberish, unproven accusations -- and then wilted and
turned angry when challenged on the facts and the evidence.
When I challenged Leo to provide some PROOF for his asinine
accusations -- he went ballistic and threw a hissy fit.
Bad Show!
Leo couldn't back up his loony accusations with EVIDENCE -- so he was
pulverized and shown up as a fraud and a poseur in the Free Market of
Ideas.
For those of us with better memories than Hines, or unlike him having the
sense & honesty to check our recall instead of spouting shameless
falsehoods, the fact is that Leo made no such accusation against Randolph
Churchill: he merely reported having read a book that contained such a
charge.
This can be verified from his post on the subject, at
http://tinyurl.com/au9x9
and from a thread five years before when he reported on the same book
(without demur from Hines) at
http://tinyurl.com/b29gk
stating only that it seemed 'possible' and then agreeing with Jean Coeur de
Lapin's opinion objecting to 'perfectly insane speculations of "possible
history"' that did not 'really belong on this thread'.
Hardly the frame of mind on Leo's part that Hines now seeks to represent to
the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Leo van de Pas -- Sad
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: leovd...@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas")
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:40:40 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Wed, Oct 13 2004 3:40 pm
Subject: OT Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
Dear John,
Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
Royals".
It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by several people,
including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the monarchy". You
probably read about the surgical method by which the murders were done,
this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge to do it himself. He may have
caused it but did not do it, nor asked for it to be done."
Leo
------------------------
Errant Twaddle!
DSH
| Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others)
| be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy?
Leo van de Pas
-----------------------------
You probably read about the surgical method by which the murders were
done, this dopey Duke* had no medical knowledge to do it himself. He
may have caused it but did not do it, nor asked [sic] for it to be
done."...
...."Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"
Leo van de Pas
-----------------
* Albert Victor Christian, [1864-1892] Duke of Avondale, Earl of
Athlone, son of "Bertie", the Prince of Wales, and grandson of Queen
Victoria.
Leo van de Pas has not provided a scintilla of evidence to prove ANY of
that rampant gibberish supra, maligning Lord Randolph Churchill and
others, who cannot defend themselves.
Yes, Leo has indeed done some marvelous things in Genealogy and I
applaud him for them -- but he has blotted his copybook on this one --
and it deserves to be pointed out.
Leo SAYS he doesn't read either my posts or my emails, so there is no
way I could have done this "privately" -- for those of you who wonder
about that.
Besides, PUBLIC errors should be corrected PUBLICLY.
Why is it only coming up now?
Because I've been quite busy with other priorities and only now had the
time to follow up on Leo's gaffe -- and intemperate, childish, hissy-fit
response to me, after which he retreated to hide behind his killfile --
back in October 2004.
Leo van de Pas -- hoist with his own petar.
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
-------------------
Of Note:
Albert Victor Christian:
Acceded: 24 May 1890. Duke of Avondale, Earl of Athlone, Betrothed to
Mary of Teck, who later married George V. He proposed to her at Luton
Hoo on 3 Dec 1891 and she accepted; they were engaged from that date.
The wedding was to have been on 27 Feb 1892. "Prince Eddy" --- as he
was known within the family --- became ill in early January and died on
14 Jan 1892 of pneumonia. Marriage to Annie Crook is only reputed, not
confirmed.
One theory, by Knight, has it that the Duke of Clarence was actually
Jack the Ripper. Jack, the pseudonymous perpetrator, committed the
notorious murders of at least seven women, all prostitutes, in, or
near, Whitechapel -- in London's East End -- from 7 August to 10
November 1888.
"Regarding HRH The Duke of Clarence and the Jack the Ripper controversy:
1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:
A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.
During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:
29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.
7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.
27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the
Royal Family at Balmoral.
2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of
Wales at Sandringham.
Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books. The story
of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has been
proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual
killer, a combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and
alleged lover) James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the
involvement of his father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last
victim. Take your pick! They're all nonsense. ******
Indeed! ---- DSH
My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the
dates of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are
drawn, quoting from published court circulars. Mention is also made of
these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these dates in Michael
Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin Howells and
Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow, and
in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo Aronsen.
The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved. The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it
is claimed not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child
through his illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was
faked, that he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the
1930s, that he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family
who were then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to
marry into the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of
an illicit affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the
future Emperor Alexander III of Russia."
Greg King 8 Nov 1997
From: ""John Parsons"" <carm...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
| It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale
| (1864-1892) who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor
| after his father, Edward VII.
|
| Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s
| after the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to
| light. These papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's
| patients, as the son of a noble English family, a man whose parents
| were renowned for their social gifts and who had done much to
| enhance British prestige around the world. While the account in
| no way pointed directly to the royal family, the British media of
| the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
| meant.
|
| Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court
| Circular showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one
| of the Whitechapel murders.
|
| For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was
| later made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that
| he was among those present when a homosexual brothel in London
| was raided. Allegedly he had gone there expecting the Victorian
| equivalent of an evening of strip teases by pretty girls, and left
| quite disappointed.
|
| No certain conclusions about his private life can be based on this one
| incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries and letters of the
| time that the duke carried on every bit as active a heterosexual
| love life as did his father. In fact royal secretaries were petrified
| at the mere thought that Queen Victoria might find out what her
| grandson was up to, and elaborate strategies were developed to
| conceal the truth from her.
| Albert Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love affair to another,
| at one point falling desperately in love with a daughter of the Count
| of Paris, precipitating a minor crisis as public opinion would have
| opposed his marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the republican French
| government would not have wished the stature of the exiled Orleans
| family to be enhanced by such a marriage.
|
| The attractive but mentally inert Albert Victor was engaged in 1891 to
| his cousin Princess "May" of Teck, but the next January caught
| influenza while hunting at Sandringham and died of pneumonia.
| (Princess May in 1893 married his younger brother George, duke of
| York, who became George V in 1910.)
| Rumor continues to insist that Albert Victor died of something of a
| more social nature than pneumonia, but no proof of this has yet
| been found.
|
| John P.
Leo van de Pas needs to stop retailing rumor.
Bad Show!
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
23 February 2005
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
From: leovd...@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas")
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:40:40 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Wed, Oct 13 2004 3:40 pm
Subject: OT Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
Dear John,
Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
Royals".
It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by several people,
including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the monarchy". You
probably read about the surgical method by which the murders were done,
this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge to do it himself. He may have
caused it but did not do it, nor asked for it to be done."
Leo
------------------------
Errant Twaddle!
DSH
| Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others)
| be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy?
Leo van de Pas
-----------------------------
You probably read about the surgical method by which the murders were
done, this dopey Duke* had no medical knowledge to do it himself. He
may have caused it but did not do it, nor asked [sic] for it to be
done."...
...."Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"
Leo van de Pas
-----------------
* Albert Victor Christian, [1864-1892] Duke of Avondale, Earl of
Athlone, son of "Bertie", the Prince of Wales, and grandson of Queen
Victoria.
Leo van de Pas has not provided a scintilla of evidence to prove ANY of
that rampant gibberish supra, maligning Lord Randolph Churchill and
others, who cannot defend themselves.
Yes, Leo has indeed done some marvelous things in Genealogy and I
applaud him for them -- but he has blotted his copybook on this one --
and it deserves to be pointed out.
Leo SAYS he doesn't read either my posts or my emails, so there is no
way I could have done this "privately" -- for those of you who wonder
about that.
Besides, PUBLIC errors should be corrected PUBLICLY.
Why is it only coming up now?
Because I've been quite busy with other priorities and only now had the
time to follow up on Leo's gaffe -- and intemperate, childish, hissy-fit
response to me, after which he retreated to hide behind his killfile --
back in October 2004.
Leo van de Pas -- hoist with his own petar.
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
-------------------
Of Note:
Albert Victor Christian:
Acceded: 24 May 1890. Duke of Avondale, Earl of Athlone, Betrothed to
Mary of Teck, who later married George V. He proposed to her at Luton
Hoo on 3 Dec 1891 and she accepted; they were engaged from that date.
The wedding was to have been on 27 Feb 1892. "Prince Eddy" --- as he
was known within the family --- became ill in early January and died on
14 Jan 1892 of pneumonia. Marriage to Annie Crook is only reputed, not
confirmed.
One theory, by Knight, has it that the Duke of Clarence was actually
Jack the Ripper. Jack, the pseudonymous perpetrator, committed the
notorious murders of at least seven women, all prostitutes, in, or
near, Whitechapel -- in London's East End -- from 7 August to 10
November 1888.
"Regarding HRH The Duke of Clarence and the Jack the Ripper controversy:
1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:
A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.
During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:
29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.
7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.
27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the
Royal Family at Balmoral.
2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of
Wales at Sandringham.
Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books. The story
of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has been
proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual
killer, a combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and
alleged lover) James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the
involvement of his father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last
victim. Take your pick! They're all nonsense. ******
Indeed! ---- DSH
My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the
dates of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are
drawn, quoting from published court circulars. Mention is also made of
these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these dates in Michael
Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin Howells and
Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow, and
in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo Aronsen.
The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved. The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it
is claimed not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child
through his illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was
faked, that he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the
1930s, that he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family
who were then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to
marry into the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of
an illicit affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the
future Emperor Alexander III of Russia."
Greg King 8 Nov 1997
From: ""John Parsons"" <carm...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
| It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale
| (1864-1892) who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor
| after his father, Edward VII.
|
| Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s
| after the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to
| light. These papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's
| patients, as the son of a noble English family, a man whose parents
| were renowned for their social gifts and who had done much to
| enhance British prestige around the world. While the account in
| no way pointed directly to the royal family, the British media of
| the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
| meant.
|
| Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court
| Circular showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one
| of the Whitechapel murders.
|
| For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was
| later made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that
| he was among those present when a homosexual brothel in London
| was raided. Allegedly he had gone there expecting the Victorian
| equivalent of an evening of strip teases by pretty girls, and left
| quite disappointed.
|
| No certain conclusions about his private life can be based on this one
| incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries and letters of the
| time that the duke carried on every bit as active a heterosexual
| love life as did his father. In fact royal secretaries were petrified
| at the mere thought that Queen Victoria might find out what her
| grandson was up to, and elaborate strategies were developed to
| conceal the truth from her.
| Albert Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love affair to another,
| at one point falling desperately in love with a daughter of the Count
| of Paris, precipitating a minor crisis as public opinion would have
| opposed his marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the republican French
| government would not have wished the stature of the exiled Orleans
| family to be enhanced by such a marriage.
|
| The attractive but mentally inert Albert Victor was engaged in 1891 to
| his cousin Princess "May" of Teck, but the next January caught
| influenza while hunting at Sandringham and died of pneumonia.
| (Princess May in 1893 married his younger brother George, duke of
| York, who became George V in 1910.)
| Rumor continues to insist that Albert Victor died of something of a
| more social nature than pneumonia, but no proof of this has yet
| been found.
|
| John P.
Leo van de Pas needs to stop retailing rumor.
Bad Show!
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
23 February 2005
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor