Randolph Ravings was Fw: Leo van de Pas -- Sad

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Randolph Ravings was Fw: Leo van de Pas -- Sad

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2005 14:16:02

Dear Peter,

When Hines did not demur, that was because he understood----but that was
five years before. A lot has happened since, and I suppose now he doesn't
remember and now he can't comprehend what he has been reading. So sad. If
only glasses were the answer.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 8:54 PM
Subject: 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...
""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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»