Have you noticed?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
CED
Have you noticed?
To the Newsgroup:
I've been away for a while. Lucre must be earned I did have an
opportunity to drop in for a peek or two. I did notice that Richardson
continues with his obsessive announcements of who is related to whom in
medieval Europe: first England, then France, now Germany. I wonder:
does he think he is informing us about things that we do not know (or
could not discover if we wanted to know)?
For a while, I thought there might be some method to his madness: he
could be laying the ground work for a systematic study of forms of
address for the period; but no! He has not yet demonstrated that he
knows the methodolgy for such a study. In order to lay out such a
ground work, one must set some limits, circumscribe the area of study,
in time, place, language, etc. This he does not do. In fact, with
these most recent posts, he is expanding his area of study (if he has
one). Would that he understood that one first concentrates and studies
a small area, then as his knowledge and understanding of that area
gains acceptance among his peers, he can expand his area. Is this
serious stuff, or is it blatant, sheer exhibitionism
Have you noticed, when a post to this newsgroup begins: "Thank you for
your good post" you know immediately without reading further that it
comes from Douglas Richardson?
Have you noticed how he alone thanks us for "good post(s)" ? One would
think that it is his job to thank us for posting messages. In fact, he
has used such a greeting more than two hundred times in the past three
or four years. (I must admit that he has not thanked me, not at all!)
If I had not known better, I would have thought on seeing such
greetings that Richardson held some position of authority with this
group. If he deemed a message was good, he would pronounce it so. If
not, he could issue a snide remark or an outright insult, thus
pronoucing it bad.
Early on I thought that this was just another of his peculiarites; but,
upon further examination in context, something with the appearance of a
pattern emerges. His use of this greeting leaves the impression upon
the less well informed that he does have status in this group. He has
a purpose in thanking some persons for their "good post(s)": he appears
to have a proprietary status in the group; and so, one proprietary
interest then serves another of his proprietary interests.
Have you noticed also: almost invariably, when Richardson refers to an
article, book, or other publication, he includes an adjective of
judgement concerning its quality? Most frequently he calls the
publication an "account" and pronounces the account "good." Others
might take note of the quality of a publication or even a post and then
tell us why they make such a judgement. But not Richardson! In almost
200 instances he has called a book, article, or publication a "good
account" of some event or another. A pronouncement: a "good account,"
as if his statement of approval by and in itself had status. He, an
authority, has said it is a "good account" so it must be so! I would
suggest: do a gooogle on "good account" in Richardson's posts. Can you
find justifications for his pronouncements?
Which brings us to another Richardson peculiarity. Gooogle "I find"
among Richardson's posts. Scholars back up their use of term "l find"
with the evidence necessary to support the finding. But not
Richardson! Just look at a few of his posts. For example: From:
Douglas Richardson - Date: Mon, Nov 10 2003 1:02 pm Groups:
soc.genealogy.medieval. This post (and others in the thread) is strewn
with "I finds" but they are not backed up with evidence and logic.
When you read a Richardson post, count the times he bases his arguments
on "I find." Then look for evidence.
So we have it. "Good post" sets Richardson up as proprietary or in a
position of authority in the group; "good account" sets him up to pass
judgement on the accounts of others; and "I find" means that his
findings, in his view (and he expects of others') are the opinion of
the authority.
Where will it end? At first, when Richardson was telling us about who
was related to whom in England, there was some promise (if he did the
work) - it could be contended that he had some knowledge of English
history (He even made a claim to expertise in some area of English
history. I forget which - but can look it up if need be). Then he
ventured in to France. He has not made such a claim for any area of
French history (or language for that matter). Now it is Germany!
That's joke to any of us who have endured formal study in German
history.
When will it be that his "I finds" and the stuff he digs from his
files have the status of "authority"?
That then leads us back to his other proprietary interest.
CED
I've been away for a while. Lucre must be earned I did have an
opportunity to drop in for a peek or two. I did notice that Richardson
continues with his obsessive announcements of who is related to whom in
medieval Europe: first England, then France, now Germany. I wonder:
does he think he is informing us about things that we do not know (or
could not discover if we wanted to know)?
For a while, I thought there might be some method to his madness: he
could be laying the ground work for a systematic study of forms of
address for the period; but no! He has not yet demonstrated that he
knows the methodolgy for such a study. In order to lay out such a
ground work, one must set some limits, circumscribe the area of study,
in time, place, language, etc. This he does not do. In fact, with
these most recent posts, he is expanding his area of study (if he has
one). Would that he understood that one first concentrates and studies
a small area, then as his knowledge and understanding of that area
gains acceptance among his peers, he can expand his area. Is this
serious stuff, or is it blatant, sheer exhibitionism
Have you noticed, when a post to this newsgroup begins: "Thank you for
your good post" you know immediately without reading further that it
comes from Douglas Richardson?
Have you noticed how he alone thanks us for "good post(s)" ? One would
think that it is his job to thank us for posting messages. In fact, he
has used such a greeting more than two hundred times in the past three
or four years. (I must admit that he has not thanked me, not at all!)
If I had not known better, I would have thought on seeing such
greetings that Richardson held some position of authority with this
group. If he deemed a message was good, he would pronounce it so. If
not, he could issue a snide remark or an outright insult, thus
pronoucing it bad.
Early on I thought that this was just another of his peculiarites; but,
upon further examination in context, something with the appearance of a
pattern emerges. His use of this greeting leaves the impression upon
the less well informed that he does have status in this group. He has
a purpose in thanking some persons for their "good post(s)": he appears
to have a proprietary status in the group; and so, one proprietary
interest then serves another of his proprietary interests.
Have you noticed also: almost invariably, when Richardson refers to an
article, book, or other publication, he includes an adjective of
judgement concerning its quality? Most frequently he calls the
publication an "account" and pronounces the account "good." Others
might take note of the quality of a publication or even a post and then
tell us why they make such a judgement. But not Richardson! In almost
200 instances he has called a book, article, or publication a "good
account" of some event or another. A pronouncement: a "good account,"
as if his statement of approval by and in itself had status. He, an
authority, has said it is a "good account" so it must be so! I would
suggest: do a gooogle on "good account" in Richardson's posts. Can you
find justifications for his pronouncements?
Which brings us to another Richardson peculiarity. Gooogle "I find"
among Richardson's posts. Scholars back up their use of term "l find"
with the evidence necessary to support the finding. But not
Richardson! Just look at a few of his posts. For example: From:
Douglas Richardson - Date: Mon, Nov 10 2003 1:02 pm Groups:
soc.genealogy.medieval. This post (and others in the thread) is strewn
with "I finds" but they are not backed up with evidence and logic.
When you read a Richardson post, count the times he bases his arguments
on "I find." Then look for evidence.
So we have it. "Good post" sets Richardson up as proprietary or in a
position of authority in the group; "good account" sets him up to pass
judgement on the accounts of others; and "I find" means that his
findings, in his view (and he expects of others') are the opinion of
the authority.
Where will it end? At first, when Richardson was telling us about who
was related to whom in England, there was some promise (if he did the
work) - it could be contended that he had some knowledge of English
history (He even made a claim to expertise in some area of English
history. I forget which - but can look it up if need be). Then he
ventured in to France. He has not made such a claim for any area of
French history (or language for that matter). Now it is Germany!
That's joke to any of us who have endured formal study in German
history.
When will it be that his "I finds" and the stuff he digs from his
files have the status of "authority"?
That then leads us back to his other proprietary interest.
CED
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Have you noticed?
In message of 14 Mar, "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote:
Not unsurprisingly I find this a very cogent account and well beleive
that this sums up what the rest of you are suffering (apart from those
of us that have put the chappie on a kill-file).
This behaviour which you so rightly remark on is indeed patronising and
offensive as all patronising is. Here's the dictionary definition
(from somewhere on the internet):
patronising:
(used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who
treat others with condescension [syn: {arch}, {condescending},
{patronizing}]
Yes, the chappie is tossing morsels to the supplicants at his feet. He
is a superior being before whom all should bow down. Or rather that is
what he would like to be. This is, of course, megalomania ("a
psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur"). Just
occasionally megalomaniacs notice that the rest of the world
does not bow down and worship and they get rather paranoid about it and
here the plethora of words from the internet dictionary makes me marvel
that the English language can be so expressive:
paranoia:
a psychological disorder characterized by delusions of
persecution or grandeur
and
Thesaurus words for "paranoia":
alternating personality, brain disease, catatonia,
catatonic schizophrenia, crack-up, dementia praecox,
depersonalization, disconnection, dissociation,
dissociation of personality, double personality, dual personality,
emotional disorder, emotional dissociation, emotional instability,
functional nervous disorder, hebephrenia,
hebephrenic schizophrenia, insanity, maladjustment,
manic-depressive psychosis, melancholia, mental disorder,
mental dissociation, mental illness, multiple personality,
nervous breakdown, nervous disorder, neurosis,
paranoid personality, paranoid psychosis, paraphrenia,
personality disorder, personality disorganization,
problems in living, psychosis, reaction, schizoid personality,
schizoidism, schizophrenia, schizothymia, social maladjustment,
split personality
One wonders at the veracity of all this!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
So we have it. "Good post" sets Richardson up as proprietary or in a
position of authority in the group; "good account" sets him up to pass
judgement on the accounts of others; and "I find" means that his
findings, in his view (and he expects of others') are the opinion of
the authority.
Not unsurprisingly I find this a very cogent account and well beleive
that this sums up what the rest of you are suffering (apart from those
of us that have put the chappie on a kill-file).
This behaviour which you so rightly remark on is indeed patronising and
offensive as all patronising is. Here's the dictionary definition
(from somewhere on the internet):
patronising:
(used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who
treat others with condescension [syn: {arch}, {condescending},
{patronizing}]
Yes, the chappie is tossing morsels to the supplicants at his feet. He
is a superior being before whom all should bow down. Or rather that is
what he would like to be. This is, of course, megalomania ("a
psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur"). Just
occasionally megalomaniacs notice that the rest of the world
does not bow down and worship and they get rather paranoid about it and
here the plethora of words from the internet dictionary makes me marvel
that the English language can be so expressive:
paranoia:
a psychological disorder characterized by delusions of
persecution or grandeur
and
Thesaurus words for "paranoia":
alternating personality, brain disease, catatonia,
catatonic schizophrenia, crack-up, dementia praecox,
depersonalization, disconnection, dissociation,
dissociation of personality, double personality, dual personality,
emotional disorder, emotional dissociation, emotional instability,
functional nervous disorder, hebephrenia,
hebephrenic schizophrenia, insanity, maladjustment,
manic-depressive psychosis, melancholia, mental disorder,
mental dissociation, mental illness, multiple personality,
nervous breakdown, nervous disorder, neurosis,
paranoid personality, paranoid psychosis, paraphrenia,
personality disorder, personality disorganization,
problems in living, psychosis, reaction, schizoid personality,
schizoidism, schizophrenia, schizothymia, social maladjustment,
split personality
One wonders at the veracity of all this!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Kevan Barton
Re: Have you noticed?
CED,
I've been a list subscriber for some years; being very involved a couple of
years back. Genealogy wise, I've needed to spend much time on more current
family history as I've been the recipient of bundles of family documents
(letters, journals, diaries, etc.) as family passsed on. I've also been
doing much work on my wife's French Canadian lines, but I do try to keep my
eye on gen-medieval as it can be so interesting.
Your msg caught my eye, however, and I wonder if everything is okay. I
really do not mean this rudely, but it is really your own obsession that you
are expressing in your msg. I read much of what comes across gen-medieval
to include the flames (and I've been part and party in the past), but I
would suggest that you examine your expressions and motives. Is there such
a thing as stalking on the web? It's pretty creepy thinking there might be
someone out watching; acutally wanting to and taking the time to weigh,
judge, and interpret motives and intentions.
I might suggest that you look at Douglas' writings as templates, and his
style just might not mean what you think.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Have you noticed?
I've been a list subscriber for some years; being very involved a couple of
years back. Genealogy wise, I've needed to spend much time on more current
family history as I've been the recipient of bundles of family documents
(letters, journals, diaries, etc.) as family passsed on. I've also been
doing much work on my wife's French Canadian lines, but I do try to keep my
eye on gen-medieval as it can be so interesting.
Your msg caught my eye, however, and I wonder if everything is okay. I
really do not mean this rudely, but it is really your own obsession that you
are expressing in your msg. I read much of what comes across gen-medieval
to include the flames (and I've been part and party in the past), but I
would suggest that you examine your expressions and motives. Is there such
a thing as stalking on the web? It's pretty creepy thinking there might be
someone out watching; acutally wanting to and taking the time to weigh,
judge, and interpret motives and intentions.
I might suggest that you look at Douglas' writings as templates, and his
style just might not mean what you think.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Have you noticed?
To the Newsgroup:
I've been away for a while. Lucre must be earned I did have an
opportunity to drop in for a peek or two. I did notice that Richardson
continues with his obsessive announcements of who is related to whom in
medieval Europe: first England, then France, now Germany. I wonder:
does he think he is informing us about things that we do not know (or
could not discover if we wanted to know)?
For a while, I thought there might be some method to his madness: he
could be laying the ground work for a systematic study of forms of
address for the period; but no! He has not yet demonstrated that he
knows the methodolgy for such a study. In order to lay out such a
ground work, one must set some limits, circumscribe the area of study,
in time, place, language, etc. This he does not do. In fact, with
these most recent posts, he is expanding his area of study (if he has
one). Would that he understood that one first concentrates and studies
a small area, then as his knowledge and understanding of that area
gains acceptance among his peers, he can expand his area. Is this
serious stuff, or is it blatant, sheer exhibitionism
Have you noticed, when a post to this newsgroup begins: "Thank you for
your good post" you know immediately without reading further that it
comes from Douglas Richardson?
Have you noticed how he alone thanks us for "good post(s)" ? One would
think that it is his job to thank us for posting messages. In fact, he
has used such a greeting more than two hundred times in the past three
or four years. (I must admit that he has not thanked me, not at all!)
If I had not known better, I would have thought on seeing such
greetings that Richardson held some position of authority with this
group. If he deemed a message was good, he would pronounce it so. If
not, he could issue a snide remark or an outright insult, thus
pronoucing it bad.
Early on I thought that this was just another of his peculiarites; but,
upon further examination in context, something with the appearance of a
pattern emerges. His use of this greeting leaves the impression upon
the less well informed that he does have status in this group. He has
a purpose in thanking some persons for their "good post(s)": he appears
to have a proprietary status in the group; and so, one proprietary
interest then serves another of his proprietary interests.
Have you noticed also: almost invariably, when Richardson refers to an
article, book, or other publication, he includes an adjective of
judgement concerning its quality? Most frequently he calls the
publication an "account" and pronounces the account "good." Others
might take note of the quality of a publication or even a post and then
tell us why they make such a judgement. But not Richardson! In almost
200 instances he has called a book, article, or publication a "good
account" of some event or another. A pronouncement: a "good account,"
as if his statement of approval by and in itself had status. He, an
authority, has said it is a "good account" so it must be so! I would
suggest: do a gooogle on "good account" in Richardson's posts. Can you
find justifications for his pronouncements?
Which brings us to another Richardson peculiarity. Gooogle "I find"
among Richardson's posts. Scholars back up their use of term "l find"
with the evidence necessary to support the finding. But not
Richardson! Just look at a few of his posts. For example: From:
Douglas Richardson - Date: Mon, Nov 10 2003 1:02 pm Groups:
soc.genealogy.medieval. This post (and others in the thread) is strewn
with "I finds" but they are not backed up with evidence and logic.
When you read a Richardson post, count the times he bases his arguments
on "I find." Then look for evidence.
So we have it. "Good post" sets Richardson up as proprietary or in a
position of authority in the group; "good account" sets him up to pass
judgement on the accounts of others; and "I find" means that his
findings, in his view (and he expects of others') are the opinion of
the authority.
Where will it end? At first, when Richardson was telling us about who
was related to whom in England, there was some promise (if he did the
work) - it could be contended that he had some knowledge of English
history (He even made a claim to expertise in some area of English
history. I forget which - but can look it up if need be). Then he
ventured in to France. He has not made such a claim for any area of
French history (or language for that matter). Now it is Germany!
That's joke to any of us who have endured formal study in German
history.
When will it be that his "I finds" and the stuff he digs from his
files have the status of "authority"?
That then leads us back to his other proprietary interest.
CED
-
CED
Re: Have you noticed?
"Kevan Barton" wrote:
Kevan Barton:
Comments noted below.
CED
Several months ago I posted a statement that I intended to keep
Richardson honest. (Check the archives.) Since that time I have tried
to do so. You have a right to disagree with that which I post; but
what I do with respect to Richardson is open for all to see. What he
posts is for all the world to see. He does much, not so posted, which
I assume you do not see.
How can reading, doing proper analysis, and responding to a publicly
posted message be stalking?
Why does Richardson post messages? He intends them to be read. He
should not post that which does not want to be read carefully. Public
matters are often taken seriously and analysed carefully. Richardson
should be flattered to be taken more seriously than his posts deserve.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume that you have not read
Richardson's postings carefully.
Just what do you mean by templates? Models to be followed? For what
purpoise would one want to use his stuff as templates?
CED,
I've been a list subscriber for some years; being very involved a couple of
years back. Genealogy wise, I've needed to spend much time on more current
family history as I've been the recipient of bundles of family documents
(letters, journals, diaries, etc.) as family passsed on. I've also been
doing much work on my wife's French Canadian lines, but I do try to keep my
eye on gen-medieval as it can be so interesting.
Your msg caught my eye, however, and I wonder if everything is okay. I
really do not mean this rudely, but it is really your own obsession that you
are expressing in your msg. I read much of what comes across gen-medieval
to include the flames (and I've been part and party in the past), but I
would suggest that you examine your expressions and motives.
Kevan Barton:
Comments noted below.
CED
Several months ago I posted a statement that I intended to keep
Richardson honest. (Check the archives.) Since that time I have tried
to do so. You have a right to disagree with that which I post; but
what I do with respect to Richardson is open for all to see. What he
posts is for all the world to see. He does much, not so posted, which
I assume you do not see.
Is there such
a thing as stalking on the web? It's pretty creepy thinking there might be
someone out watching; acutally wanting to and taking the time to weigh,
judge, and interpret motives and intentions.
How can reading, doing proper analysis, and responding to a publicly
posted message be stalking?
Why does Richardson post messages? He intends them to be read. He
should not post that which does not want to be read carefully. Public
matters are often taken seriously and analysed carefully. Richardson
should be flattered to be taken more seriously than his posts deserve.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume that you have not read
Richardson's postings carefully.
I might suggest that you look at Douglas' writings as templates,
Just what do you mean by templates? Models to be followed? For what
purpoise would one want to use his stuff as templates?
and his
style just might not mean what you think.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Have you noticed?
To the Newsgroup:
I've been away for a while. Lucre must be earned I did have an
opportunity to drop in for a peek or two. I did notice that Richardson
continues with his obsessive announcements of who is related to whom in
medieval Europe: first England, then France, now Germany. I wonder:
does he think he is informing us about things that we do not know (or
could not discover if we wanted to know)?
For a while, I thought there might be some method to his madness: he
could be laying the ground work for a systematic study of forms of
address for the period; but no! He has not yet demonstrated that he
knows the methodolgy for such a study. In order to lay out such a
ground work, one must set some limits, circumscribe the area of study,
in time, place, language, etc. This he does not do. In fact, with
these most recent posts, he is expanding his area of study (if he has
one). Would that he understood that one first concentrates and studies
a small area, then as his knowledge and understanding of that area
gains acceptance among his peers, he can expand his area. Is this
serious stuff, or is it blatant, sheer exhibitionism
Have you noticed, when a post to this newsgroup begins: "Thank you for
your good post" you know immediately without reading further that it
comes from Douglas Richardson?
Have you noticed how he alone thanks us for "good post(s)" ? One would
think that it is his job to thank us for posting messages. In fact, he
has used such a greeting more than two hundred times in the past three
or four years. (I must admit that he has not thanked me, not at all!)
If I had not known better, I would have thought on seeing such
greetings that Richardson held some position of authority with this
group. If he deemed a message was good, he would pronounce it so. If
not, he could issue a snide remark or an outright insult, thus
pronoucing it bad.
Early on I thought that this was just another of his peculiarites; but,
upon further examination in context, something with the appearance of a
pattern emerges. His use of this greeting leaves the impression upon
the less well informed that he does have status in this group. He has
a purpose in thanking some persons for their "good post(s)": he appears
to have a proprietary status in the group; and so, one proprietary
interest then serves another of his proprietary interests.
Have you noticed also: almost invariably, when Richardson refers to an
article, book, or other publication, he includes an adjective of
judgement concerning its quality? Most frequently he calls the
publication an "account" and pronounces the account "good." Others
might take note of the quality of a publication or even a post and then
tell us why they make such a judgement. But not Richardson! In almost
200 instances he has called a book, article, or publication a "good
account" of some event or another. A pronouncement: a "good account,"
as if his statement of approval by and in itself had status. He, an
authority, has said it is a "good account" so it must be so! I would
suggest: do a gooogle on "good account" in Richardson's posts. Can you
find justifications for his pronouncements?
Which brings us to another Richardson peculiarity. Gooogle "I find"
among Richardson's posts. Scholars back up their use of term "l find"
with the evidence necessary to support the finding. But not
Richardson! Just look at a few of his posts. For example: From:
Douglas Richardson - Date: Mon, Nov 10 2003 1:02 pm Groups:
soc.genealogy.medieval. This post (and others in the thread) is strewn
with "I finds" but they are not backed up with evidence and logic.
When you read a Richardson post, count the times he bases his arguments
on "I find." Then look for evidence.
So we have it. "Good post" sets Richardson up as proprietary or in a
position of authority in the group; "good account" sets him up to pass
judgement on the accounts of others; and "I find" means that his
findings, in his view (and he expects of others') are the opinion of
the authority.
Where will it end? At first, when Richardson was telling us about who
was related to whom in England, there was some promise (if he did the
work) - it could be contended that he had some knowledge of English
history (He even made a claim to expertise in some area of English
history. I forget which - but can look it up if need be). Then he
ventured in to France. He has not made such a claim for any area of
French history (or language for that matter). Now it is Germany!
That's joke to any of us who have endured formal study in German
history.
When will it be that his "I finds" and the stuff he digs from his
files have the status of "authority"?
That then leads us back to his other proprietary interest.
CED
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Have you noticed?
Sadly, I believe Richardson needs to be watched, and not just be a few. His
behaviour at times is just unbelievable and he blandly continues as though
he is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread.
It is only lately that he may acknowledge error, but too often he does not.
He poses knowledge he does not have, medieval Latin, French, Greek and still
expects to be regarded an expert. By his posturing he has placed himself on
a pedestal and expects adoration of the masses.
At long last I have learned that Richardson is not to be respected as a
person, nor as a genealogist. Personally I have kill filed him. However this
does not mean that others should not be weary of his actions.
James Cummings may well be correct, even if CED sees it differently, that
Richardson is pursuing Baronial or Carolingian lineages. Great, but let him
acknowledge that. With a a little better manners and honesty many people,
including myself, may have been willing to assist and support him----even if
he does it to make money, money out of you and me. However, I see nothing
wrong supporting someone to make a better prodeuct, as long as it is done
honestly.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevan Barton" <kevanbarton@adelphia.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?
behaviour at times is just unbelievable and he blandly continues as though
he is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread.
It is only lately that he may acknowledge error, but too often he does not.
He poses knowledge he does not have, medieval Latin, French, Greek and still
expects to be regarded an expert. By his posturing he has placed himself on
a pedestal and expects adoration of the masses.
At long last I have learned that Richardson is not to be respected as a
person, nor as a genealogist. Personally I have kill filed him. However this
does not mean that others should not be weary of his actions.
James Cummings may well be correct, even if CED sees it differently, that
Richardson is pursuing Baronial or Carolingian lineages. Great, but let him
acknowledge that. With a a little better manners and honesty many people,
including myself, may have been willing to assist and support him----even if
he does it to make money, money out of you and me. However, I see nothing
wrong supporting someone to make a better prodeuct, as long as it is done
honestly.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevan Barton" <kevanbarton@adelphia.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?
CED,
I've been a list subscriber for some years; being very involved a couple
of years back. Genealogy wise, I've needed to spend much time on more
current family history as I've been the recipient of bundles of family
documents (letters, journals, diaries, etc.) as family passsed on. I've
also been doing much work on my wife's French Canadian lines, but I do try
to keep my eye on gen-medieval as it can be so interesting.
Your msg caught my eye, however, and I wonder if everything is okay. I
really do not mean this rudely, but it is really your own obsession that
you are expressing in your msg. I read much of what comes across
gen-medieval to include the flames (and I've been part and party in the
past), but I would suggest that you examine your expressions and motives.
Is there such a thing as stalking on the web? It's pretty creepy thinking
there might be someone out watching; acutally wanting to and taking the
time to weigh, judge, and interpret motives and intentions.
I might suggest that you look at Douglas' writings as templates, and his
style just might not mean what you think.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Have you noticed?
To the Newsgroup:
I've been away for a while. Lucre must be earned I did have an
opportunity to drop in for a peek or two. I did notice that Richardson
continues with his obsessive announcements of who is related to whom in
medieval Europe: first England, then France, now Germany. I wonder:
does he think he is informing us about things that we do not know (or
could not discover if we wanted to know)?
For a while, I thought there might be some method to his madness: he
could be laying the ground work for a systematic study of forms of
address for the period; but no! He has not yet demonstrated that he
knows the methodolgy for such a study. In order to lay out such a
ground work, one must set some limits, circumscribe the area of study,
in time, place, language, etc. This he does not do. In fact, with
these most recent posts, he is expanding his area of study (if he has
one). Would that he understood that one first concentrates and studies
a small area, then as his knowledge and understanding of that area
gains acceptance among his peers, he can expand his area. Is this
serious stuff, or is it blatant, sheer exhibitionism
Have you noticed, when a post to this newsgroup begins: "Thank you for
your good post" you know immediately without reading further that it
comes from Douglas Richardson?
Have you noticed how he alone thanks us for "good post(s)" ? One would
think that it is his job to thank us for posting messages. In fact, he
has used such a greeting more than two hundred times in the past three
or four years. (I must admit that he has not thanked me, not at all!)
If I had not known better, I would have thought on seeing such
greetings that Richardson held some position of authority with this
group. If he deemed a message was good, he would pronounce it so. If
not, he could issue a snide remark or an outright insult, thus
pronoucing it bad.
Early on I thought that this was just another of his peculiarites; but,
upon further examination in context, something with the appearance of a
pattern emerges. His use of this greeting leaves the impression upon
the less well informed that he does have status in this group. He has
a purpose in thanking some persons for their "good post(s)": he appears
to have a proprietary status in the group; and so, one proprietary
interest then serves another of his proprietary interests.
Have you noticed also: almost invariably, when Richardson refers to an
article, book, or other publication, he includes an adjective of
judgement concerning its quality? Most frequently he calls the
publication an "account" and pronounces the account "good." Others
might take note of the quality of a publication or even a post and then
tell us why they make such a judgement. But not Richardson! In almost
200 instances he has called a book, article, or publication a "good
account" of some event or another. A pronouncement: a "good account,"
as if his statement of approval by and in itself had status. He, an
authority, has said it is a "good account" so it must be so! I would
suggest: do a gooogle on "good account" in Richardson's posts. Can you
find justifications for his pronouncements?
Which brings us to another Richardson peculiarity. Gooogle "I find"
among Richardson's posts. Scholars back up their use of term "l find"
with the evidence necessary to support the finding. But not
Richardson! Just look at a few of his posts. For example: From:
Douglas Richardson - Date: Mon, Nov 10 2003 1:02 pm Groups:
soc.genealogy.medieval. This post (and others in the thread) is strewn
with "I finds" but they are not backed up with evidence and logic.
When you read a Richardson post, count the times he bases his arguments
on "I find." Then look for evidence.
So we have it. "Good post" sets Richardson up as proprietary or in a
position of authority in the group; "good account" sets him up to pass
judgement on the accounts of others; and "I find" means that his
findings, in his view (and he expects of others') are the opinion of
the authority.
Where will it end? At first, when Richardson was telling us about who
was related to whom in England, there was some promise (if he did the
work) - it could be contended that he had some knowledge of English
history (He even made a claim to expertise in some area of English
history. I forget which - but can look it up if need be). Then he
ventured in to France. He has not made such a claim for any area of
French history (or language for that matter). Now it is Germany!
That's joke to any of us who have endured formal study in German
history.
When will it be that his "I finds" and the stuff he digs from his
files have the status of "authority"?
That then leads us back to his other proprietary interest.
CED
-
Gjest
Re: Have you noticed?
CED,
However illuminating it may seem to you to reveal the expressive style
of Mr. Richardson, I fail to see how your continual diatribe
contributes to the advancement of medieval genealogy.
For a self professed expert in genealogy, history and language, I find
your posts remarkably lacking in substance.
Would you care to enlighten this newsgroup with a list of your own
publications comparable to that of Mr. Richardson so that the relative
amateurs (such as myself) of this newsgroup may feast in the
magnificence of the depth and breadth of your knowledge.
In anticipation,
Andrew
CED wrote:
However illuminating it may seem to you to reveal the expressive style
of Mr. Richardson, I fail to see how your continual diatribe
contributes to the advancement of medieval genealogy.
For a self professed expert in genealogy, history and language, I find
your posts remarkably lacking in substance.
Would you care to enlighten this newsgroup with a list of your own
publications comparable to that of Mr. Richardson so that the relative
amateurs (such as myself) of this newsgroup may feast in the
magnificence of the depth and breadth of your knowledge.
In anticipation,
Andrew
CED wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
I've been away for a while. Lucre must be earned I did have an
opportunity to drop in for a peek or two. I did notice that Richardson
continues with his obsessive announcements of who is related to whom in
medieval Europe: first England, then France, now Germany. I wonder:
does he think he is informing us about things that we do not know (or
could not discover if we wanted to know)?
For a while, I thought there might be some method to his madness: he
could be laying the ground work for a systematic study of forms of
address for the period; but no! He has not yet demonstrated that he
knows the methodolgy for such a study. In order to lay out such a
ground work, one must set some limits, circumscribe the area of study,
in time, place, language, etc. This he does not do. In fact, with
these most recent posts, he is expanding his area of study (if he has
one). Would that he understood that one first concentrates and studies
a small area, then as his knowledge and understanding of that area
gains acceptance among his peers, he can expand his area. Is this
serious stuff, or is it blatant, sheer exhibitionism
Have you noticed, when a post to this newsgroup begins: "Thank you for
your good post" you know immediately without reading further that it
comes from Douglas Richardson?
Have you noticed how he alone thanks us for "good post(s)" ? One would
think that it is his job to thank us for posting messages. In fact, he
has used such a greeting more than two hundred times in the past three
or four years. (I must admit that he has not thanked me, not at all!)
If I had not known better, I would have thought on seeing such
greetings that Richardson held some position of authority with this
group. If he deemed a message was good, he would pronounce it so. If
not, he could issue a snide remark or an outright insult, thus
pronoucing it bad.
Early on I thought that this was just another of his peculiarites; but,
upon further examination in context, something with the appearance of a
pattern emerges. His use of this greeting leaves the impression upon
the less well informed that he does have status in this group. He has
a purpose in thanking some persons for their "good post(s)": he appears
to have a proprietary status in the group; and so, one proprietary
interest then serves another of his proprietary interests.
Have you noticed also: almost invariably, when Richardson refers to an
article, book, or other publication, he includes an adjective of
judgement concerning its quality? Most frequently he calls the
publication an "account" and pronounces the account "good." Others
might take note of the quality of a publication or even a post and then
tell us why they make such a judgement. But not Richardson! In almost
200 instances he has called a book, article, or publication a "good
account" of some event or another. A pronouncement: a "good account,"
as if his statement of approval by and in itself had status. He, an
authority, has said it is a "good account" so it must be so! I would
suggest: do a gooogle on "good account" in Richardson's posts. Can you
find justifications for his pronouncements?
Which brings us to another Richardson peculiarity. Gooogle "I find"
among Richardson's posts. Scholars back up their use of term "l find"
with the evidence necessary to support the finding. But not
Richardson! Just look at a few of his posts. For example: From:
Douglas Richardson - Date: Mon, Nov 10 2003 1:02 pm Groups:
soc.genealogy.medieval. This post (and others in the thread) is strewn
with "I finds" but they are not backed up with evidence and logic.
When you read a Richardson post, count the times he bases his arguments
on "I find." Then look for evidence.
So we have it. "Good post" sets Richardson up as proprietary or in a
position of authority in the group; "good account" sets him up to pass
judgement on the accounts of others; and "I find" means that his
findings, in his view (and he expects of others') are the opinion of
the authority.
Where will it end? At first, when Richardson was telling us about who
was related to whom in England, there was some promise (if he did the
work) - it could be contended that he had some knowledge of English
history (He even made a claim to expertise in some area of English
history. I forget which - but can look it up if need be). Then he
ventured in to France. He has not made such a claim for any area of
French history (or language for that matter). Now it is Germany!
That's joke to any of us who have endured formal study in German
history.
When will it be that his "I finds" and the stuff he digs from his
files have the status of "authority"?
That then leads us back to his other proprietary interest.
CED
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Have you noticed?
Dear Andrew,
I do disagree with you. To put it awkwardly, the tools used to 'advance'
genealogy have to be scrutinised as well as the genealogy itself.. If we do
not use good "tools" how can we come to good genealogy?
The exposure of bad tools does contribute, as it warns people to be weary.
The tool referred to blandly continues without, apparently, taking much
notice of what is said.
You expecting CED to blind us with the list of his genealogical achievements
and knowledge is rather silly. He doesn't have to have published any thing.
to be able to call a spade a spade. As long what he says makes sense, that
is all we can expect from him, and sadly to many he does make sense.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?
I do disagree with you. To put it awkwardly, the tools used to 'advance'
genealogy have to be scrutinised as well as the genealogy itself.. If we do
not use good "tools" how can we come to good genealogy?
The exposure of bad tools does contribute, as it warns people to be weary.
The tool referred to blandly continues without, apparently, taking much
notice of what is said.
You expecting CED to blind us with the list of his genealogical achievements
and knowledge is rather silly. He doesn't have to have published any thing.
to be able to call a spade a spade. As long what he says makes sense, that
is all we can expect from him, and sadly to many he does make sense.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?
CED,
However illuminating it may seem to you to reveal the expressive style
of Mr. Richardson, I fail to see how your continual diatribe
contributes to the advancement of medieval genealogy.
For a self professed expert in genealogy, history and language, I find
your posts remarkably lacking in substance.
Would you care to enlighten this newsgroup with a list of your own
publications comparable to that of Mr. Richardson so that the relative
amateurs (such as myself) of this newsgroup may feast in the
magnificence of the depth and breadth of your knowledge.
In anticipation,
Andrew
CED wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
I've been away for a while. Lucre must be earned I did have an
opportunity to drop in for a peek or two. I did notice that Richardson
continues with his obsessive announcements of who is related to whom in
medieval Europe: first England, then France, now Germany. I wonder:
does he think he is informing us about things that we do not know (or
could not discover if we wanted to know)?
For a while, I thought there might be some method to his madness: he
could be laying the ground work for a systematic study of forms of
address for the period; but no! He has not yet demonstrated that he
knows the methodolgy for such a study. In order to lay out such a
ground work, one must set some limits, circumscribe the area of study,
in time, place, language, etc. This he does not do. In fact, with
these most recent posts, he is expanding his area of study (if he has
one). Would that he understood that one first concentrates and studies
a small area, then as his knowledge and understanding of that area
gains acceptance among his peers, he can expand his area. Is this
serious stuff, or is it blatant, sheer exhibitionism
Have you noticed, when a post to this newsgroup begins: "Thank you for
your good post" you know immediately without reading further that it
comes from Douglas Richardson?
Have you noticed how he alone thanks us for "good post(s)" ? One would
think that it is his job to thank us for posting messages. In fact, he
has used such a greeting more than two hundred times in the past three
or four years. (I must admit that he has not thanked me, not at all!)
If I had not known better, I would have thought on seeing such
greetings that Richardson held some position of authority with this
group. If he deemed a message was good, he would pronounce it so. If
not, he could issue a snide remark or an outright insult, thus
pronoucing it bad.
Early on I thought that this was just another of his peculiarites; but,
upon further examination in context, something with the appearance of a
pattern emerges. His use of this greeting leaves the impression upon
the less well informed that he does have status in this group. He has
a purpose in thanking some persons for their "good post(s)": he appears
to have a proprietary status in the group; and so, one proprietary
interest then serves another of his proprietary interests.
Have you noticed also: almost invariably, when Richardson refers to an
article, book, or other publication, he includes an adjective of
judgement concerning its quality? Most frequently he calls the
publication an "account" and pronounces the account "good." Others
might take note of the quality of a publication or even a post and then
tell us why they make such a judgement. But not Richardson! In almost
200 instances he has called a book, article, or publication a "good
account" of some event or another. A pronouncement: a "good account,"
as if his statement of approval by and in itself had status. He, an
authority, has said it is a "good account" so it must be so! I would
suggest: do a gooogle on "good account" in Richardson's posts. Can you
find justifications for his pronouncements?
Which brings us to another Richardson peculiarity. Gooogle "I find"
among Richardson's posts. Scholars back up their use of term "l find"
with the evidence necessary to support the finding. But not
Richardson! Just look at a few of his posts. For example: From:
Douglas Richardson - Date: Mon, Nov 10 2003 1:02 pm Groups:
soc.genealogy.medieval. This post (and others in the thread) is strewn
with "I finds" but they are not backed up with evidence and logic.
When you read a Richardson post, count the times he bases his arguments
on "I find." Then look for evidence.
So we have it. "Good post" sets Richardson up as proprietary or in a
position of authority in the group; "good account" sets him up to pass
judgement on the accounts of others; and "I find" means that his
findings, in his view (and he expects of others') are the opinion of
the authority.
Where will it end? At first, when Richardson was telling us about who
was related to whom in England, there was some promise (if he did the
work) - it could be contended that he had some knowledge of English
history (He even made a claim to expertise in some area of English
history. I forget which - but can look it up if need be). Then he
ventured in to France. He has not made such a claim for any area of
French history (or language for that matter). Now it is Germany!
That's joke to any of us who have endured formal study in German
history.
When will it be that his "I finds" and the stuff he digs from his
files have the status of "authority"?
That then leads us back to his other proprietary interest.
CED
-
CED
Re: Have you noticed?
Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Andrew:
I have never described myself as an expert in any area of genealogy,
history, or language. In fact I am not a linguist; nor am I a
genealogist; I could, though I do not, make a credible claim to be a
historian.
With the newsgroup, I began as a lurker and later became a participant,
becoming the latter only after reading a few messages posted by
Richardson. Richardson was plugging his own books (contrary to
netiquette), making unfounded claims as to his own expertize, abusing
those who disagreed with him, and often feigning politeness with
insincere obsequious expressions of familiarity or empathy.
So, I announced for all to see that I was going to keep Richardson
honest.
It has been quite a task - unrewarded, except with the satisfaction
gained in knowing that, when I do this self-imposed duty, the less well
informed will be better informed.
CED
Dear Andrew:
I have never described myself as an expert in any area of genealogy,
history, or language. In fact I am not a linguist; nor am I a
genealogist; I could, though I do not, make a credible claim to be a
historian.
With the newsgroup, I began as a lurker and later became a participant,
becoming the latter only after reading a few messages posted by
Richardson. Richardson was plugging his own books (contrary to
netiquette), making unfounded claims as to his own expertize, abusing
those who disagreed with him, and often feigning politeness with
insincere obsequious expressions of familiarity or empathy.
So, I announced for all to see that I was going to keep Richardson
honest.
It has been quite a task - unrewarded, except with the satisfaction
gained in knowing that, when I do this self-imposed duty, the less well
informed will be better informed.
CED
CED,
However illuminating it may seem to you to reveal the expressive style
of Mr. Richardson, I fail to see how your continual diatribe
contributes to the advancement of medieval genealogy.
For a self professed expert in genealogy, history and language, I find
your posts remarkably lacking in substance.
Would you care to enlighten this newsgroup with a list of your own
publications comparable to that of Mr. Richardson so that the relative
amateurs (such as myself) of this newsgroup may feast in the
magnificence of the depth and breadth of your knowledge.
In anticipation,
Andrew
CED wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
I've been away for a while. Lucre must be earned I did have an
opportunity to drop in for a peek or two. I did notice that Richardson
continues with his obsessive announcements of who is related to whom in
medieval Europe: first England, then France, now Germany. I wonder:
does he think he is informing us about things that we do not know (or
could not discover if we wanted to know)?
For a while, I thought there might be some method to his madness: he
could be laying the ground work for a systematic study of forms of
address for the period; but no! He has not yet demonstrated that he
knows the methodolgy for such a study. In order to lay out such a
ground work, one must set some limits, circumscribe the area of study,
in time, place, language, etc. This he does not do. In fact, with
these most recent posts, he is expanding his area of study (if he has
one). Would that he understood that one first concentrates and studies
a small area, then as his knowledge and understanding of that area
gains acceptance among his peers, he can expand his area. Is this
serious stuff, or is it blatant, sheer exhibitionism
Have you noticed, when a post to this newsgroup begins: "Thank you for
your good post" you know immediately without reading further that it
comes from Douglas Richardson?
Have you noticed how he alone thanks us for "good post(s)" ? One would
think that it is his job to thank us for posting messages. In fact, he
has used such a greeting more than two hundred times in the past three
or four years. (I must admit that he has not thanked me, not at all!)
If I had not known better, I would have thought on seeing such
greetings that Richardson held some position of authority with this
group. If he deemed a message was good, he would pronounce it so. If
not, he could issue a snide remark or an outright insult, thus
pronoucing it bad.
Early on I thought that this was just another of his peculiarites; but,
upon further examination in context, something with the appearance of a
pattern emerges. His use of this greeting leaves the impression upon
the less well informed that he does have status in this group. He has
a purpose in thanking some persons for their "good post(s)": he appears
to have a proprietary status in the group; and so, one proprietary
interest then serves another of his proprietary interests.
Have you noticed also: almost invariably, when Richardson refers to an
article, book, or other publication, he includes an adjective of
judgement concerning its quality? Most frequently he calls the
publication an "account" and pronounces the account "good." Others
might take note of the quality of a publication or even a post and then
tell us why they make such a judgement. But not Richardson! In almost
200 instances he has called a book, article, or publication a "good
account" of some event or another. A pronouncement: a "good account,"
as if his statement of approval by and in itself had status. He, an
authority, has said it is a "good account" so it must be so! I would
suggest: do a gooogle on "good account" in Richardson's posts. Can you
find justifications for his pronouncements?
Which brings us to another Richardson peculiarity. Gooogle "I find"
among Richardson's posts. Scholars back up their use of term "l find"
with the evidence necessary to support the finding. But not
Richardson! Just look at a few of his posts. For example: From:
Douglas Richardson - Date: Mon, Nov 10 2003 1:02 pm Groups:
soc.genealogy.medieval. This post (and others in the thread) is strewn
with "I finds" but they are not backed up with evidence and logic.
When you read a Richardson post, count the times he bases his arguments
on "I find." Then look for evidence.
So we have it. "Good post" sets Richardson up as proprietary or in a
position of authority in the group; "good account" sets him up to pass
judgement on the accounts of others; and "I find" means that his
findings, in his view (and he expects of others') are the opinion of
the authority.
Where will it end? At first, when Richardson was telling us about who
was related to whom in England, there was some promise (if he did the
work) - it could be contended that he had some knowledge of English
history (He even made a claim to expertise in some area of English
history. I forget which - but can look it up if need be). Then he
ventured in to France. He has not made such a claim for any area of
French history (or language for that matter). Now it is Germany!
That's joke to any of us who have endured formal study in German
history.
When will it be that his "I finds" and the stuff he digs from his
files have the status of "authority"?
That then leads us back to his other proprietary interest.
CED
-
Gjest
Re: Have you noticed?
CED wrote:
Anyone who keeps any one of us honest by subjecting our posts and logic
to scrutiny is a welcome addition to this list.
Michael Andrews-Reading
So, I announced for all to see that I was going to keep Richardson
honest.
It has been quite a task - unrewarded, except with the satisfaction
gained in knowing that, when I do this self-imposed duty, the less well
informed will be better informed.
Anyone who keeps any one of us honest by subjecting our posts and logic
to scrutiny is a welcome addition to this list.
Michael Andrews-Reading
-
the_verminator@comcast.ne
Re: Have you noticed?
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
To sum it all up.....
"Ceterum censeo Richardson delendam esse." - with appologies to Cato.
--
The Verminator
CED wrote:
So, I announced for all to see that I was going to keep Richardson
honest.
It has been quite a task - unrewarded, except with the satisfaction
gained in knowing that, when I do this self-imposed duty, the less well
informed will be better informed.
Anyone who keeps any one of us honest by subjecting our posts and logic
to scrutiny is a welcome addition to this list.
Michael Andrews-Reading
To sum it all up.....
"Ceterum censeo Richardson delendam esse." - with appologies to Cato.
--
The Verminator
-
John Brandon
Re: Have you noticed?
The exposure of bad tools does contribute, as it warns people to be weary.
The tool referred to blandly continues without, apparently, taking much
notice of what is said.
You do realize how vulgar it is to refer to a person as a "tool," don't
you?
-
John Brandon
Re: Have you noticed?
CED wrote:
What a fatuous old creature you must be ...
It has been quite a task - unrewarded, except with the satisfaction
gained in knowing that, when I do this self-imposed duty, the less well
informed will be better informed.
What a fatuous old creature you must be ...
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Have you noticed?
In article <1142438254.981425.304330@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"the_verminator@comcast.net" <the_verminator@comcast.net> wrote:
He is female, like Carthage?
--> Ceterum censeo R. delendUM esse.
</schoolmarm>
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"the_verminator@comcast.net" <the_verminator@comcast.net> wrote:
To sum it all up.....
"Ceterum censeo Richardson delendam esse." - with appologies to Cato.
He is female, like Carthage?
--> Ceterum censeo R. delendUM esse.
</schoolmarm>
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
CED
Re: Have you noticed?
the_verminator@comcast.net wrote:
If, when cleansed by a dose of honesty, only dross remains, so be it.
CED
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
CED wrote:
So, I announced for all to see that I was going to keep Richardson
honest.
It has been quite a task - unrewarded, except with the satisfaction
gained in knowing that, when I do this self-imposed duty, the less well
informed will be better informed.
Anyone who keeps any one of us honest by subjecting our posts and logic
to scrutiny is a welcome addition to this list.
Michael Andrews-Reading
To sum it all up.....
"Ceterum censeo Richardson delendam esse." - with appologies to Cato.
If, when cleansed by a dose of honesty, only dross remains, so be it.
CED
--
The Verminator
-
CED
Re: Have you noticed?
John Brandon wrote:
John Brandon:
I do not argue with your supposition that I am old. I have been around
this world long enough to satisfy that adjective in your description.
Age, as your message appears to posit, is not a negative quality. In
fact, many anthropologists believe that it was only when humans began
to live to be grandparents and pass on to their descendants that which
they had learned that homo sapiens came to be. So, thank you for
understanding that I am old.
I would hope that, when you become old, you will have learned not to be
ashamed of being so.
We are all God's creatures.
As for fatuous, if you believe as it appears do about being "old," then
when it came to fatuous, you must have done something see a reflection
of yourself. That must be so; for if you truly appreciate Richardson's
recent posts about who is related to whom, you would realize that what
he does is superfluous redundancy. Assuming that you are not really
fatuous, I need not define either "superfluous" or "redundancy."
CED
CED wrote:
It has been quite a task - unrewarded, except with the satisfaction
gained in knowing that, when I do this self-imposed duty, the less well
informed will be better informed.
What a fatuous old creature you must be ...
John Brandon:
I do not argue with your supposition that I am old. I have been around
this world long enough to satisfy that adjective in your description.
Age, as your message appears to posit, is not a negative quality. In
fact, many anthropologists believe that it was only when humans began
to live to be grandparents and pass on to their descendants that which
they had learned that homo sapiens came to be. So, thank you for
understanding that I am old.
I would hope that, when you become old, you will have learned not to be
ashamed of being so.
We are all God's creatures.
As for fatuous, if you believe as it appears do about being "old," then
when it came to fatuous, you must have done something see a reflection
of yourself. That must be so; for if you truly appreciate Richardson's
recent posts about who is related to whom, you would realize that what
he does is superfluous redundancy. Assuming that you are not really
fatuous, I need not define either "superfluous" or "redundancy."
CED