My reply to this person is:
It is in my opinion a tragedy. It could be so different and so much better. Lets mention Spencer Hines first. He is a strange person who, years ago, produced a few superb ancestor lists. Then we had someone on the group for while who milked the site for a genealogical magazine he produced.
Ever since Hines's only contribution is bickering and belittling. He regards people as either friends or enemies, if you are a friend of a friend he won't say anything, but if he perceives you to be an enemy of his friend, well, then you are fair game. He cannot admit error and is very stubborn.
For quite a while now I have been asking questions on gen-med on behalf of other people, as they feared (mainly Hines's) sarcastic remarks directed at new people. For a long time I defended Hines saying people should look at what he says, not how. Lately he has not been saying much, except bickering and attacking.
But now the problem. I do not know how long you have been visiting gen-med, but Douglas Richardson started attending gen-med (a guess) about three to three-and-a half years ago, maybe more. Fairly soon it became obvious why. He started advertising his book, even though asked not to, as we are not supposed to advertise wares or services. Most of his messages were geared towards his book and invited people to buy it before publication day and they would get it cheaper. This was done regularly (guess) for about two years. After a considerable while even one (elderly) person asked whether she could expect to get the book before she died.
If only his behaviour was different, most would gladly have helped him with the common goal of a better genealogical book. Apparently lots of (needed) acknowledgements never made it into his book. This still would not be so serious, if only for his behaviour and scholarship (or lack thereof).
He has incredible double standards, he expected people to answer all his questions and supply sources, a reply without a source was not a reply. In return he does in general not answer questions directed at him. Often his replies are counter-questions or attacks.
He used gen-med to verify his data, if only he did this in a honest fashion but he did not. He would pretend to have found something new and then stood by waiting for it to be disected. He wants others to do the hard work for him. In the archives are several of such debacles. One (not started by him) was about Amy de Gaveston. And his opinions were interesting to say the least.
He pretends to know medieval Latin well enough to be able to use medieval records, but then misrepresents them because he does not understand. And he cannot cope with being corrected.
As a result over the years several people have tried first to help him, but when that was not appreciated, they tried to expose his many shortcomings. This caused Richardson's vendetta against Peter Stewart. First Peter Stewart was really Spencer Hines. Then, was Peter Stewart Peter Stewart? and on and on and on goes his attacks on Peter Stewart. He even gave indications, blatant ones, he thought Peter Stewart just had to be homosexual. But then someone spoke up about Richardson to have been brawling in a gay place himself. To show he had support he conjured up Urian N Owen, "an Englishman" who first lived in Turkey and then he didn't and then suddenly owned property there for 20 years. First the Turks didn't know him and then he suddenly was regarded as a local.
Over the years I have asked Richardson several times to apologise for his behaviour (towards me). He apologised once. Then I made my website public and not so long ago he had great fun exposing "bloopers" on my website. Then for a while he was away and when he came back he announced that Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself had been fighting with everyone all the time he was away, and he felt so sorry for all the people involved. As I do help people on and more so off list, I do not appreciate such tags.
Asking to provide evidence has been ignored, but it should be easy enough as "all those fights" should be available in the archives of gen-med. Then suddenly he apologised _to my website_ for having used the term bloopers. Apologising for falsely accusing Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself was just too much to expect.
When his book "Plantagenet Ancestry" came out he promised a site for corrections and additions. And quite a few people spoke out with corrections and additions. The book came out before June 2004 and still no site has been made by Richardson. And as there was regular criticism about the book, an offer was made by someone else to make this site. Since a short while there is this site and has remarks already for about 100 pages, some entries concern more than one error or addition on a page.
Richardson is dreadfully patronizing "that was a good message" is one of his regular openers. He rubs people up the wrong way and still pretends Gen-Med is his turf, blatantly telling the list owner Todd Farmerie to stick it, as Richardson "knows what is right".
I am sure a lot more can be said, but what is the good? Does Richardson listen? I wonder what his tack will be now after the last revelation by Peter Stewart about the adventures of Uriah Owen in cyberland.
You feel reluctant to contribute, but at least you are still following the group. My question is how many people have given up on gen-med? We used to have more regular contributors from Europe but where are they now? (Is England in Europe?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Dear Leo,
I appreciate your contributions to the General Medieval site, and I congratulate and thank you for your outstanding database, which I often consult.
However, I am puzzled and appalled at some of the astonishing, bitter and insulting criticisms that are directed at contributors to the forum, including against your good self. There must be many like me who are astonished at it and shy away from contributing because of it. I have never come across anything like it on any other site. Can you throw any light on the reasons why there is such appalling bitterness? Is there something in the people concerned I which know nothing about which has brought about this feuding?
I am genuinely puzzled and appalled; I am sure I am not the only one! I love this subject and period but I am put off badly by these awful remarks.