Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 15 sep 2005 12:01:01

Does OT stand for Oh so Tedious?
Do Richardson and Hines have no shame?

Sanctimonious Richardson proclaims we are here for genealogy and making
friends. Let him practice what he preaches. If he had any decency he would
stop this Uriah nonsense and not keep on reviving it----it does not contain
any genealogy and it shows only how petty he is.
We could not care less where people in Europe invest their money. I
understand that Richardson has been involved in the real estate business
himself, this may explain his interest, but it is of no value on a
genealogical group where he is supposedly to make friends. I am just
wondering, how many "friends" does Richardson still have? What has happened
to Mike Welch? Amongst the friends of Richardson he appeared to be the only
decent one. Has he been shamed and does not want to contribute any longer?
Very sadly, that is one decent person less.

Instead of playing the offended Prima Donna, he could start answering all
those questions in regards of his "Plantagenet Ancestry". Now that would be
Genealogy and collegial. I do hope those cows do come home. It would be time
so much better spent then displaying tantrums.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Royalty for Commoners


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




Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 15 sep 2005 16:16:14

Dear Leo ~

Everyone knows that the means don't justify the ends. That includes
you gving private e-mails to Peter M. Stewart for him to use to attack
other people here on the newsgroup. You did do that, didn't you, Leo?
Shame on you. Private is private, public is public.

So, aren't you being a little sanctimonious yourself? Pretending to be
above it all, when privately you've encouraged Peter Stewart to attack
other people? That's sad, Leo, really sad.

You're a good man, Leo, but you don't always show good sense. I'm very
disappointed in you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Does OT stand for Oh so Tedious?
Do Richardson and Hines have no shame?

Sanctimonious Richardson proclaims we are here for genealogy and making
friends. Let him practice what he preaches. If he had any decency he would
stop this Uriah nonsense and not keep on reviving it----it does not contain
any genealogy and it shows only how petty he is.
We could not care less where people in Europe invest their money. I
understand that Richardson has been involved in the real estate business
himself, this may explain his interest, but it is of no value on a
genealogical group where he is supposedly to make friends. I am just
wondering, how many "friends" does Richardson still have? What has happened
to Mike Welch? Amongst the friends of Richardson he appeared to be the only
decent one. Has he been shamed and does not want to contribute any longer?
Very sadly, that is one decent person less.

Instead of playing the offended Prima Donna, he could start answering all
those questions in regards of his "Plantagenet Ancestry". Now that would be
Genealogy and collegial. I do hope those cows do come home. It would be time
so much better spent then displaying tantrums.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Royalty for Commoners


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: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 sep 2005 20:01:42

Did I encourage Peter Stewart to attack people? Prove it. Or is this part of
" When you were away Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself were fighting
all the time with everyone and you felt sorry for everyone"

Poor, one-track-mind, old Leo ... trotting out this ragged tag once
again ...

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 15 sep 2005 20:11:35

Dear Leo ~

You haven't been attacked, Leo. And, you aren't a victim. It is a
matter of public knowledge that you've shared another poster's PRIVATE
e-mail without their permission with Peter Stewart in order for Peter
to attack other people here on the newsgroup. You think you'd learn
not to do this. Then, you come back here and claim to be above it all.
Utter codswollop. You're waist deep in Peter Stewart's manure.
Defending Peter just gets you in deeper.

What's going on with Michael Welch? Truthfully, he's very disappointed
by what you did, that's what. He's also very angry with you. He says
you professed to be his friend with one hand, and then stabbed him in
the back with the other.

You're a good man, Leo, but sometimes you don't show much common sense.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
As usual attack is the only defense Richardson has. Addressing the problem
at hand is never Richardson's style. What private e-mail did I give to Peter
Stewart? Are you on a fishing expedition?

Did I encourage Peter Stewart to attack people? Prove it. Or is this part of
" When you were away Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself were fighting
all the time with everyone and you felt sorry for everyone" You still have
not provided one bit of proof about it, let alone apologised for your
blatant lies. A lie is a lie and if there was any truth in it, the archives
are there to proof it.

Sanctimonious is such an apt description of you, "it is love and we are here
for genealogy and making friends" on the one hand and stabbing people in the
back on the other. What is going on with MIke Welch?


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT


Dear Leo ~

Everyone knows that the means don't justify the ends. That includes
you gving private e-mails to Peter M. Stewart for him to use to attack
other people here on the newsgroup. You did do that, didn't you, Leo?
Shame on you. Private is private, public is public.

So, aren't you being a little sanctimonious yourself? Pretending to be
above it all, when privately you've encouraged Peter Stewart to attack
other people? That's sad, Leo, really sad.

You're a good man, Leo, but you don't always show good sense. I'm very
disappointed in you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Does OT stand for Oh so Tedious?
Do Richardson and Hines have no shame?

Sanctimonious Richardson proclaims we are here for genealogy and making
friends. Let him practice what he preaches. If he had any decency he
would
stop this Uriah nonsense and not keep on reviving it----it does not
contain
any genealogy and it shows only how petty he is.
We could not care less where people in Europe invest their money. I
understand that Richardson has been involved in the real estate business
himself, this may explain his interest, but it is of no value on a
genealogical group where he is supposedly to make friends. I am just
wondering, how many "friends" does Richardson still have? What has
happened
to Mike Welch? Amongst the friends of Richardson he appeared to be the
only
decent one. Has he been shamed and does not want to contribute any
longer?
Very sadly, that is one decent person less.

Instead of playing the offended Prima Donna, he could start answering all
those questions in regards of his "Plantagenet Ancestry". Now that would
be
Genealogy and collegial. I do hope those cows do come home. It would be
time
so much better spent then displaying tantrums.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Royalty for Commoners


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






Leo van de Pas

Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 15 sep 2005 20:42:02

As usual attack is the only defense Richardson has. Addressing the problem
at hand is never Richardson's style. What private e-mail did I give to Peter
Stewart? Are you on a fishing expedition?

Did I encourage Peter Stewart to attack people? Prove it. Or is this part of
" When you were away Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself were fighting
all the time with everyone and you felt sorry for everyone" You still have
not provided one bit of proof about it, let alone apologised for your
blatant lies. A lie is a lie and if there was any truth in it, the archives
are there to proof it.

Sanctimonious is such an apt description of you, "it is love and we are here
for genealogy and making friends" on the one hand and stabbing people in the
back on the other. What is going on with MIke Welch?


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT


Dear Leo ~

Everyone knows that the means don't justify the ends. That includes
you gving private e-mails to Peter M. Stewart for him to use to attack
other people here on the newsgroup. You did do that, didn't you, Leo?
Shame on you. Private is private, public is public.

So, aren't you being a little sanctimonious yourself? Pretending to be
above it all, when privately you've encouraged Peter Stewart to attack
other people? That's sad, Leo, really sad.

You're a good man, Leo, but you don't always show good sense. I'm very
disappointed in you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Does OT stand for Oh so Tedious?
Do Richardson and Hines have no shame?

Sanctimonious Richardson proclaims we are here for genealogy and making
friends. Let him practice what he preaches. If he had any decency he
would
stop this Uriah nonsense and not keep on reviving it----it does not
contain
any genealogy and it shows only how petty he is.
We could not care less where people in Europe invest their money. I
understand that Richardson has been involved in the real estate business
himself, this may explain his interest, but it is of no value on a
genealogical group where he is supposedly to make friends. I am just
wondering, how many "friends" does Richardson still have? What has
happened
to Mike Welch? Amongst the friends of Richardson he appeared to be the
only
decent one. Has he been shamed and does not want to contribute any
longer?
Very sadly, that is one decent person less.

Instead of playing the offended Prima Donna, he could start answering all
those questions in regards of his "Plantagenet Ancestry". Now that would
be
Genealogy and collegial. I do hope those cows do come home. It would be
time
so much better spent then displaying tantrums.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Royalty for Commoners


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






Leo van de Pas

Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 15 sep 2005 22:35:02

You don't seem to know any more when you are attacking people. What public
knowledge about me sharing a posters private e-mail? You have have been
adding things, like you do so often, and think you know the answer.

I do not need to encourage Peter Stewart to attack/disagree with you, you do
give that encouragement yourself abundantly and continually.

If you practiced what you preach, you would be flat out doing genealogy,
replying to people who send you additions and corrections to your book(s).

People have to stand by their word and when that word can expose a liar who
continually attacks people, they should make that clear.. Standing by when
someone gets unreasonably attacked is not a nice thing to do. And when you
know that people are spreading untruths that should be exposed as well, for
the simple reason that in the end the truth will come out.


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT


Dear Leo ~

You haven't been attacked, Leo. And, you aren't a victim. It is a
matter of public knowledge that you've shared another poster's PRIVATE
e-mail without their permission with Peter Stewart in order for Peter
to attack other people here on the newsgroup. You think you'd learn
not to do this. Then, you come back here and claim to be above it all.
Utter codswollop. You're waist deep in Peter Stewart's manure.
Defending Peter just gets you in deeper.

What's going on with Michael Welch? Truthfully, he's very disappointed
by what you did, that's what. He's also very angry with you. He says
you professed to be his friend with one hand, and then stabbed him in
the back with the other.

You're a good man, Leo, but sometimes you don't show much common sense.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
As usual attack is the only defense Richardson has. Addressing the
problem
at hand is never Richardson's style. What private e-mail did I give to
Peter
Stewart? Are you on a fishing expedition?

Did I encourage Peter Stewart to attack people? Prove it. Or is this part
of
" When you were away Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself were
fighting
all the time with everyone and you felt sorry for everyone" You still
have
not provided one bit of proof about it, let alone apologised for your
blatant lies. A lie is a lie and if there was any truth in it, the
archives
are there to proof it.

Sanctimonious is such an apt description of you, "it is love and we are
here
for genealogy and making friends" on the one hand and stabbing people in
the
back on the other. What is going on with MIke Welch?


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT


Dear Leo ~

Everyone knows that the means don't justify the ends. That includes
you gving private e-mails to Peter M. Stewart for him to use to attack
other people here on the newsgroup. You did do that, didn't you, Leo?
Shame on you. Private is private, public is public.

So, aren't you being a little sanctimonious yourself? Pretending to be
above it all, when privately you've encouraged Peter Stewart to attack
other people? That's sad, Leo, really sad.

You're a good man, Leo, but you don't always show good sense. I'm very
disappointed in you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Does OT stand for Oh so Tedious?
Do Richardson and Hines have no shame?

Sanctimonious Richardson proclaims we are here for genealogy and
making
friends. Let him practice what he preaches. If he had any decency he
would
stop this Uriah nonsense and not keep on reviving it----it does not
contain
any genealogy and it shows only how petty he is.
We could not care less where people in Europe invest their money. I
understand that Richardson has been involved in the real estate
business
himself, this may explain his interest, but it is of no value on a
genealogical group where he is supposedly to make friends. I am just
wondering, how many "friends" does Richardson still have? What has
happened
to Mike Welch? Amongst the friends of Richardson he appeared to be the
only
decent one. Has he been shamed and does not want to contribute any
longer?
Very sadly, that is one decent person less.

Instead of playing the offended Prima Donna, he could start answering
all
those questions in regards of his "Plantagenet Ancestry". Now that
would
be
Genealogy and collegial. I do hope those cows do come home. It would
be
time
so much better spent then displaying tantrums.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Royalty for Commoners


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








Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 22:58:29

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126797374.826417.244530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Leo ~

Everyone knows that the means don't justify the ends. That includes
you gving private e-mails to Peter M. Stewart for him to use to attack
other people here on the newsgroup. You did do that, didn't you, Leo?
Shame on you. Private is private, public is public.

So, aren't you being a little sanctimonious yourself? Pretending to be
above it all, when privately you've encouraged Peter Stewart to attack
other people? That's sad, Leo, really sad.

So Richardson acknowledges that the e-mail relating his lies is out there
after all. Welch is evidently another of the victims of this fraud, and yet
still too loyal to denounce the actual liar.

"Uriah" Richardson has no reason whatever to attach Leo - anyone is entitled
to discuss matters of concern off-list, and to repeat information or indeed
misinformation that has been passed on to them.

Leo has NOT made any deceitful private e-mail received by him on this matter
public. Nor have I "used" Welch's e-mail to Leo to attack anyone - rather I
have merely related the contents, in order to expose someone who was
attacking the truth.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Royalty for Commoners OT

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 sep 2005 23:02:57

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126811495.303289.233830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Leo ~

You haven't been attacked, Leo. And, you aren't a victim. It is a
matter of public knowledge that you've shared another poster's PRIVATE
e-mail without their permission with Peter Stewart in order for Peter
to attack other people here on the newsgroup. You think you'd learn
not to do this. Then, you come back here and claim to be above it all.
Utter codswollop. You're waist deep in Peter Stewart's manure.
Defending Peter just gets you in deeper.

What's going on with Michael Welch? Truthfully, he's very disappointed
by what you did, that's what. He's also very angry with you. He says
you professed to be his friend with one hand, and then stabbed him in
the back with the other.

So is Welch now in Turkey and unable to speak for himself?

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Do cows jump over the moon? Not hardly OT

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 15 sep 2005 23:44:26

Peter Stewart wrote:

Leo has NOT made any deceitful private e-mail received by him on this matter
public. Nor have I "used" Welch's e-mail to Leo to attack anyone - rather I
have merely related the contents, in order to expose someone who was
attacking the truth.

Peter Stewart

It's a pity that Leo van de Pas and Peter Stewart can't get their
stories to match each other. Leo denies ever giving Michael Welch's
private e-mail to Peter Stewart. But we see above that Peter freely
admits that he in fact used Michael's private e-mail. I say shame on
both of them. Public is public. Private is private.

If Leo never sent Michael Welch's private e-mail to Peter, then I
wonder what happened? Did the e-mail jump out of Leo's inbox into
Peter's? Next thing they'll be telling us cows jump over the moon!
Now fancy that!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Do cows jump over the moon? Not hardly OT

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 sep 2005 00:02:36

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126824266.427773.96370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

Leo has NOT made any deceitful private e-mail received by him on this
matter
public. Nor have I "used" Welch's e-mail to Leo to attack anyone - rather
I
have merely related the contents, in order to expose someone who was
attacking the truth.

Peter Stewart

It's a pity that Leo van de Pas and Peter Stewart can't get their
stories to match each other. Leo denies ever giving Michael Welch's
private e-mail to Peter Stewart. But we see above that Peter freely
admits that he in fact used Michael's private e-mail. I say shame on
both of them. Public is public. Private is private.

If Leo never sent Michael Welch's private e-mail to Peter, then I
wonder what happened? Did the e-mail jump out of Leo's inbox into
Peter's? Next thing they'll be telling us cows jump over the moon!
Now fancy that!

I said I had "related the contents": this doesn't mean anything but what it
says. Leo is perfectly free to relate the gist of a private e-mail from one
person in a private e-mail to another. The misinformation was NOT
confidential, and Richardson trying to make it so retrospectively is only
showing up that the lie was targeted only at Leo, and not meant to be
repeated to me although he wasn't told to keep it to himself. Why?

If necessary to show up this latest nonsense of Richardson's I could post
one of Leo's e-mails to me that recount what he had been told by Welch. But
this should not be required, as evidently no-one here is foolish enough to
believe Richardson even about matters that he could & should know something
about: Brandon and Hines STILL won't state plainly that they believe him, or
tell us why.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 sep 2005 00:55:29

Hines wrote:

Hilarious!

"I have merely related the contents,..."

Pogue Stewart, as crooked a prevaricator as any you are ever likely to
encounter.

What CAN this mean, even to a person foolish enough to think that
someone else's appearance confirms his own lies about me?

Leo told me by e-mail that Welch had informed him "Uriah" was in
Turkey. Leo's word is more than good enough for me, and I relied on it
without any compunction in relating the (mis-)information to the
newsgroup.

Only later, when Welch had kept quiet but Richardson nevertheless chose
to compound his lie about this by accusing me of fabricating it, did I
ask Leo to confirm that he had heard this from Mike Welch as I had
understood, and he did so by sending me another of his own e-mails from
a week or so earlier. Nothing wrong, no conceivable breach of
propriety, but perfectly within his rights and mine.

Is Hines now suggesting that the false excuse should have been a secret
between Welch and Leo? Why should Leo be complicit in such a blatant
lie, when I was being falsely accused in public and asked him a
question? How is he sworn to silence on such a matter before the
newsgroup?

What "crookedness" or "prevarication" can Hines possibly mean?

The man himself obviously can't make sense: can anybody help him out?

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royalty For Commoners

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 sep 2005 01:20:02

Hilarious!

"I have merely related the contents,..."

Pogue Stewart, as crooked a prevaricator as any you are ever likely to
encounter.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:98mWe.48279$FA3.13017@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| Leo has NOT made any deceitful private e-mail received by him on this
matter
| public. Nor have I "used" Welch's e-mail to Leo to attack anyone -
rather I
| have merely related the contents, in order to expose someone who was
| attacking the truth.
|
| Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»