Bulkley of Woore 1350-1550

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
paul bulkley

Bulkley of Woore 1350-1550

Legg inn av paul bulkley » 22 okt 2005 07:35:04

My suggestion to Kay Allan that we share data
regarding the above subject resulted in her response
which can only be considered most unfortunate, stupid,
and ill mannered.

I note that our lunatic friend "down under" has now
given more valueless and trouble making advise. He and
Kay Allan should get together - both obviously have so
much in common.

Just imagine, after all these years, that Peter
Stewart can solve Kay's inability to produce a
meaningful Bulkley of Woore and Odell pedigree, and in
return Kay can hold Peter's hand and show him how to
establish the Patric pedigree. Wonders will never
cease! And they can happily swear and curse to their
heart's content.

I will say no more being, according to the learned
Kay, boorish, spiteful, arrogant, and last but not the
least, a swinish lout.

Paul Bulkley




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: Bulkley of Woore 1350-1550

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 okt 2005 09:21:38

Paul

Kay's first two responses to you can not only be considered most
unfortunate, stupid and ill mannered. I - an impartial reader -
considered them reasonable and collegial.

I was greatly surprised by your responses to them, and am sorry to say
that it was you who came across as ill mannered, stupid and most
unfortunate. I didn't post on the subject then, because Mr Richardson
eloquently stated the thoughts that I had on the subject (and Mr
Stewart seconded them), but I post now because you are being quite
unfair to Mrs Allen.

By failing to see that you perhaps unwittingly caused offence, you are
risking confirming Mrs Allen's judgment. You've certainly reduced - if
not extinguished - the chances of getting co-operation on this subject.

Regards

Michael

Rex Hotchkiss

Re: Bulkley of Woore 1350-1550

Legg inn av Rex Hotchkiss » 22 okt 2005 21:45:58

..., Kay's first two responses to you can not only be considered most
unfortunate, stupid and ill mannered. I - an impartial reader -
considered them reasonable and collegial.

I think there should not be such an argument here. I hope that my
comments comming in the middle of this will calm this situation down
and not further inflame it.

Paul Bulkley had made a general offer to trade information from his
research. He is within his rights to do that. I publish mine freely,
as I find that this results in more rapid exchange of information,
although I am sure that there are those who use my information without
giving in return information which they have which might be valuable to
me. However, many folks carefully guard their information, and only
provide it in exchange for additional information.

Kay Allen stated initially that she had information, but it was in
storage. She did NOT say that due to her current circumstances she
could not retrieve it just now, but would contact him in the future
when she could. Since she did not, Mr. Bulkley could only conclude
that she was offering to retrieve her records if he was interested, and
asked her to do so.

Kay Allen's next response was a somewhat biting comment about her
current situation, after which she finally stated that her intentions
had been to let Mr. Bulkey know that she would eventually get her
information out of storage and be able to trade with him.

At the point Paul Bulkley, obviously feeling the biting nature of the
previous response, responded in a still polite way, that he didn't know
or care particularly about her situation, which should not enter into
this offer to trade. He then reiterated that she had stated that she
had information to trade and that he would be willing to do so in the
future.

At this point enter the knights gallant, Douglas Richardson, and Peter
Stewart, both of whom anybody who reads this newsgroup knows to be
anything but understanding toward those who reply to their comments.
Both gave reference to Mrs. Allen's situation and ability to provide
information. Both also chastised Mr. Bulkley for his supposed
callousness, and Peter Stewart even went so far as to suggest that Mr.
Bulkley provide his information to Mrs. Allen in the mean time.

Paul Bulkley then gave a biting retort to Mr. Richardson and Mr.
Stewart's chastisement. This was not undeserved, as at that point the
only thing that was really wrong was a slight bit of miscommunication
from Mrs. Allen, followed by a slightly rude response from Mrs. Allen
to Mr. Bulkley's next note. However, at this point, Mr. Bulkley also
gave an overly biting, though not exactly untrue, critique of Mrs.
Allen's previous posts, which would have best been left unsaid.

This was followed by somebody named Michael writing in on the side of
Richardson and Stewart. He also stated that Mr. Bulkley had
"unwittingly caused offence." At this point I think it is fair to
state that the person who unwittingly caused offense was the widowed
Mrs. Allen, whose unfortunate state is no excuse for miscommunication
and biting comments.

Peter Stewart

Re: Bulkley of Woore 1350-1550

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 okt 2005 23:09:47

Unfortunately the trouble with any attempt to defend Paul Bulkley is, of
course, Paul Bulkley himself.

You evidently fail to realise, despite in-your-face- proof, that he is not
genuine in his efforts to wheedle information out of others. In this case
you have swallowed his line about "exchanging" information while neglecting
his spiteful & revealing answer to Kay Allen, as follows:

"I simply indicated that if you retrieved your records, perhaps we could
exchange information. To be quite blunt I am not in the least interested in
the Bulkley of Woore line. I am simply trying to improve the understanding
of a line which all acquainted seem incapable of solving."

So far from seeking to "trade" Bulkley of Woore material he was explicitly
offering to be helpful.

Ostensibly he had no interest in receiving information from Kay, and as a
highly competent researcher she certainly doesn't need anything from a
blunderer like Bulkley. His last effort to "improve understanding" in
medieval genealogy resulted in a farrago of nonsense, depending on wild
anachronisms, jamming any stray individual he happened upon into a vacant or
imaginary place in the pedigree, offering the newsgroup his hopelessly
inadequate work with woefully inaccurate citations.

Some trade.

Peter Stewart



"Rex Hotchkiss" <rexjhotchkiss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1130013958.749990.217230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
..., Kay's first two responses to you can not only be considered most
unfortunate, stupid and ill mannered. I - an impartial reader -
considered them reasonable and collegial.

I think there should not be such an argument here. I hope that my
comments comming in the middle of this will calm this situation down
and not further inflame it.

Paul Bulkley had made a general offer to trade information from his
research. He is within his rights to do that. I publish mine freely,
as I find that this results in more rapid exchange of information,
although I am sure that there are those who use my information without
giving in return information which they have which might be valuable to
me. However, many folks carefully guard their information, and only
provide it in exchange for additional information.

Kay Allen stated initially that she had information, but it was in
storage. She did NOT say that due to her current circumstances she
could not retrieve it just now, but would contact him in the future
when she could. Since she did not, Mr. Bulkley could only conclude
that she was offering to retrieve her records if he was interested, and
asked her to do so.

Kay Allen's next response was a somewhat biting comment about her
current situation, after which she finally stated that her intentions
had been to let Mr. Bulkey know that she would eventually get her
information out of storage and be able to trade with him.

At the point Paul Bulkley, obviously feeling the biting nature of the
previous response, responded in a still polite way, that he didn't know
or care particularly about her situation, which should not enter into
this offer to trade. He then reiterated that she had stated that she
had information to trade and that he would be willing to do so in the
future.

At this point enter the knights gallant, Douglas Richardson, and Peter
Stewart, both of whom anybody who reads this newsgroup knows to be
anything but understanding toward those who reply to their comments.
Both gave reference to Mrs. Allen's situation and ability to provide
information. Both also chastised Mr. Bulkley for his supposed
callousness, and Peter Stewart even went so far as to suggest that Mr.
Bulkley provide his information to Mrs. Allen in the mean time.

Paul Bulkley then gave a biting retort to Mr. Richardson and Mr.
Stewart's chastisement. This was not undeserved, as at that point the
only thing that was really wrong was a slight bit of miscommunication
from Mrs. Allen, followed by a slightly rude response from Mrs. Allen
to Mr. Bulkley's next note. However, at this point, Mr. Bulkley also
gave an overly biting, though not exactly untrue, critique of Mrs.
Allen's previous posts, which would have best been left unsaid.

This was followed by somebody named Michael writing in on the side of
Richardson and Stewart. He also stated that Mr. Bulkley had
"unwittingly caused offence." At this point I think it is fair to
state that the person who unwittingly caused offense was the widowed
Mrs. Allen, whose unfortunate state is no excuse for miscommunication
and biting comments.

John Brandon

Re: Bulkley of Woore 1350-1550

Legg inn av John Brandon » 24 okt 2005 14:43:51

It's plain that PMS likes to settle on the worst possible thing or
things that *could* be true about a person (this is apparently his idea
of 'truth-telling').

I'm inclined to accept Mr. Hotchkiss' account of the exchange. In the
past, Kay Allen _has_ sometimes posted too-brief answers and then
neglected to respond to questions that are asked. It could be
perceived as high-handed and dismissive by some readers.



Peter Stewart wrote:
Unfortunately the trouble with any attempt to defend Paul Bulkley is, of
course, Paul Bulkley himself.

You evidently fail to realise, despite in-your-face- proof, that he is not
genuine in his efforts to wheedle information out of others. In this case
you have swallowed his line about "exchanging" information while neglecting
his spiteful & revealing answer to Kay Allen, as follows:

"I simply indicated that if you retrieved your records, perhaps we could
exchange information. To be quite blunt I am not in the least interested in
the Bulkley of Woore line. I am simply trying to improve the understanding
of a line which all acquainted seem incapable of solving."

So far from seeking to "trade" Bulkley of Woore material he was explicitly
offering to be helpful.

Ostensibly he had no interest in receiving information from Kay, and as a
highly competent researcher she certainly doesn't need anything from a
blunderer like Bulkley. His last effort to "improve understanding" in
medieval genealogy resulted in a farrago of nonsense, depending on wild
anachronisms, jamming any stray individual he happened upon into a vacant or
imaginary place in the pedigree, offering the newsgroup his hopelessly
inadequate work with woefully inaccurate citations.

Some trade.

Peter Stewart



"Rex Hotchkiss" <rexjhotchkiss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1130013958.749990.217230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
..., Kay's first two responses to you can not only be considered most
unfortunate, stupid and ill mannered. I - an impartial reader -
considered them reasonable and collegial.

I think there should not be such an argument here. I hope that my
comments comming in the middle of this will calm this situation down
and not further inflame it.

Paul Bulkley had made a general offer to trade information from his
research. He is within his rights to do that. I publish mine freely,
as I find that this results in more rapid exchange of information,
although I am sure that there are those who use my information without
giving in return information which they have which might be valuable to
me. However, many folks carefully guard their information, and only
provide it in exchange for additional information.

Kay Allen stated initially that she had information, but it was in
storage. She did NOT say that due to her current circumstances she
could not retrieve it just now, but would contact him in the future
when she could. Since she did not, Mr. Bulkley could only conclude
that she was offering to retrieve her records if he was interested, and
asked her to do so.

Kay Allen's next response was a somewhat biting comment about her
current situation, after which she finally stated that her intentions
had been to let Mr. Bulkey know that she would eventually get her
information out of storage and be able to trade with him.

At the point Paul Bulkley, obviously feeling the biting nature of the
previous response, responded in a still polite way, that he didn't know
or care particularly about her situation, which should not enter into
this offer to trade. He then reiterated that she had stated that she
had information to trade and that he would be willing to do so in the
future.

At this point enter the knights gallant, Douglas Richardson, and Peter
Stewart, both of whom anybody who reads this newsgroup knows to be
anything but understanding toward those who reply to their comments.
Both gave reference to Mrs. Allen's situation and ability to provide
information. Both also chastised Mr. Bulkley for his supposed
callousness, and Peter Stewart even went so far as to suggest that Mr.
Bulkley provide his information to Mrs. Allen in the mean time.

Paul Bulkley then gave a biting retort to Mr. Richardson and Mr.
Stewart's chastisement. This was not undeserved, as at that point the
only thing that was really wrong was a slight bit of miscommunication
from Mrs. Allen, followed by a slightly rude response from Mrs. Allen
to Mr. Bulkley's next note. However, at this point, Mr. Bulkley also
gave an overly biting, though not exactly untrue, critique of Mrs.
Allen's previous posts, which would have best been left unsaid.

This was followed by somebody named Michael writing in on the side of
Richardson and Stewart. He also stated that Mr. Bulkley had
"unwittingly caused offence." At this point I think it is fair to
state that the person who unwittingly caused offense was the widowed
Mrs. Allen, whose unfortunate state is no excuse for miscommunication
and biting comments.

Peter Stewart

Re: Bulkley of Woore 1350-1550

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 okt 2005 23:18:55

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130161431.494032.131700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's plain that PMS likes to settle on the worst possible thing or
things that *could* be true about a person (this is apparently his idea
of 'truth-telling').

Then clearly you don't recall or didn't follow the thread about the Patric
family, where Bulkley posted a load of crude tosh that he had cobbled
together from ulterior motives, criticising Ormerod and Keats-Rohan while
offering only rubbish as his "improvement" to the received genealogy, and
then tried to defend his untenable ideas despite the clearest indications
that these were utterly nonsensical - all the time, of course, extracting
more information from myself and others who took the trouble to point out
the inadequacies of his "research". He has been petulant ever since, because
his miserable errors were shown up without someone else providing a full
resolution of the insoluble problem of lacking evidence that had prompted
the exchanges, as if anyone raising a question here has the absolute right
to receive a satisfactory answer, and to get it immediately.

The man is NOT genuine in his enquiries in my view, and if you wish to make
case to the contrary this will self-evidently have to be about Bulkley, not
me.

I'm inclined to accept Mr. Hotchkiss' account of the exchange. In the
past, Kay Allen _has_ sometimes posted too-brief answers and then
neglected to respond to questions that are asked. It could be
perceived as high-handed and dismissive by some readers.

Kay doesn't suffer fools, who are never in short supply on the Internet, but
she has been helpful to the newsgroup over years and polite to most
correspondents throughout that time. She doesn't OWE anything to Bulkley or
other SGM readers, no matter what they - or you - expect from her.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Bulkley of Woore 1350-1550

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 07:20:02

John Brandon schrieb:

I'm inclined to accept Mr. Hotchkiss' account of the exchange.

Why is it necessary to accept anyone's 'account of the exchange'? The
exchange is there in black and white for all to see. That's the beauty
(and the danger) of an archived group. You may agree with Mr
Hotchkiss's views, but that's another matter.

Michael

John Brandon

Re: Bulkley of Woore 1350-1550

Legg inn av John Brandon » 25 okt 2005 14:08:41

Kay doesn't suffer fools, who are never

Except when she's being one herself (lashing out at people over stuff
not remotely intended for her)!

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»