----- Original Message -----
From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <postmaster@netspeed.com.au
To: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: Delivery failure to <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com> ...
When trying to deliver your message, the mail server at
mailhost.netspeed.com.au encountered
problems with the following addresses:
For <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>, Site yahoo.com (4.79.181.15)
said
data:
554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to
andrew_mcclenahan@yahoo.com
cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or
discontinued
[#102]. - mta260.mail.mud.yahoo.com
For a more detailed explanation see
http://netwinsite.com/surgemail/deliver_failed.htm
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C64867.D4ADD030
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="ATT00350.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="ATT00350.dat"
Reporting-MTA: dns; mailhost.netspeed.com.au
Final-Recipient: rfc822;Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-code smtp; Site yahoo.com (4.79.181.15) said data: 554 =
delivery error: dd Sorry your message to andrew_mcclenah
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C64867.D4ADD030
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="Re_ Have you noticed_.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Re_ Have you noticed_.eml"
Received: from Toshiba (unverified [61.69.27.151])
by NSmailhost (SurgeMail 3.7b) with ESMTP id 162137667
for multiple; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:18:24 +1100
Return-Path: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Message-ID: <013701c647ef$e4114250$0300a8c0@Toshiba
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
References: <1142296586.288379.224200@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
1142398030.658612.92490@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:18:26 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com
r=896955829
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?
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
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C64867.D4ADD030--
Hi --
The message you submitted to this list (included above) wasn't
sent to the list subscribers. RootsWeb accepts only plain text
mail. That means that HTML mail, attachments, ``enriched text'',
and a few other formats can't be sent to RootsWeb mailing lists.
You can post your message if you send it in plain text; turn off
the ``Post in HTML'' or ``Enriched Text'' features of your mail
reader, or don't use any attachments. See
http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/listadmins/plaintext.html
for instructions on turning off HTML in most of the popular mail
programs, or ask your ISP's technical support line for help.
We've had to institute this policy because of the problems that
accompany these fancy mail formats. Some people don't have mail
programs that are capable of processing the special file formats.
Even among those who do, different mail programs handle these
special formats in very different and confusing ways. HTML messages
pose special problems to our digested mailing lists. Most of all,
HTML-ified mail and attachments place a considerable burden on
RootsWeb's overworked machines. All in all, mail in this format
produces a lot of problems for RootsWeb's servers and subscribers,
so we find it's best just to use plain text.
-- The RootsWeb staff
Fw: Fw: Delivery failure to ..
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Leo van de Pas
Fw: Fw: Delivery failure to ..
You can only wonder ---- who is Andrew McClenahan...............
-
CED
Re: Fw: Fw: Delivery failure to
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Leo:
Apparently Richardson is playing games. Remember, he has a habit of
playing games when he is uncomfortable. He seems not to want to
respond himself; and having exhausted his friends, he has found some
form of Andrew McClenahan, to ("which" or "whose" ?) post I replied as
follows:
"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
...........
You can only wonder ---- who is Andrew McClenahan.....
Leo:
Apparently Richardson is playing games. Remember, he has a habit of
playing games when he is uncomfortable. He seems not to want to
respond himself; and having exhausted his friends, he has found some
form of Andrew McClenahan, to ("which" or "whose" ?) post I replied as
follows:
"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
...........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <postmaster@netspeed.com.au
To: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: Delivery failure to <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com> ...
When trying to deliver your message, the mail server at
mailhost.netspeed.com.au encountered
problems with the following addresses:
For <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>, Site yahoo.com (4.79.181.15)
said
data:
554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to
andrew_mcclenahan@yahoo.com
cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or
discontinued
[#102]. - mta260.mail.mud.yahoo.com
For a more detailed explanation see
http://netwinsite.com/surgemail/deliver_failed.htm
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C64867.D4ADD030
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="ATT00350.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="ATT00350.dat"
Reporting-MTA: dns; mailhost.netspeed.com.au
Final-Recipient: rfc822;Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-code smtp; Site yahoo.com (4.79.181.15) said data: 554 =
delivery error: dd Sorry your message to andrew_mcclenah
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C64867.D4ADD030
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="Re_ Have you noticed_.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Re_ Have you noticed_.eml"
Received: from Toshiba (unverified [61.69.27.151])
by NSmailhost (SurgeMail 3.7b) with ESMTP id 162137667
for multiple; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:18:24 +1100
Return-Path: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Message-ID: <013701c647ef$e4114250$0300a8c0@Toshiba
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
References: <1142296586.288379.224200@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
1142398030.658612.92490@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:18:26 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com
r=896955829
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?
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
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C64867.D4ADD030--
Hi --
The message you submitted to this list (included above) wasn't
sent to the list subscribers. RootsWeb accepts only plain text
mail. That means that HTML mail, attachments, ``enriched text'',
and a few other formats can't be sent to RootsWeb mailing lists.
You can post your message if you send it in plain text; turn off
the ``Post in HTML'' or ``Enriched Text'' features of your mail
reader, or don't use any attachments. See
http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/listadmins/plaintext.html
for instructions on turning off HTML in most of the popular mail
programs, or ask your ISP's technical support line for help.
We've had to institute this policy because of the problems that
accompany these fancy mail formats. Some people don't have mail
programs that are capable of processing the special file formats.
Even among those who do, different mail programs handle these
special formats in very different and confusing ways. HTML messages
pose special problems to our digested mailing lists. Most of all,
HTML-ified mail and attachments place a considerable burden on
RootsWeb's overworked machines. All in all, mail in this format
produces a lot of problems for RootsWeb's servers and subscribers,
so we find it's best just to use plain text.
-- The RootsWeb staff
-
CED
Re : Richardson's new persona; was Re: Fw: Fw: Delivery fail
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Leo:
Have you checked "recent" messages on Richardson's new persona
Zairas@gmail.com? He knits!
That's OK, as a child I learned to crochet. My grandmother thought
that working with needle and thread would keep me out of trouble. What
did keep me out of trouble in those years was listening to her tales
about her ancestors. Her grandmother's grandfather was at Yorktown
aboard a French ship.
CED
You can only wonder ---- who is Andrew McClenahan...............
Leo:
Have you checked "recent" messages on Richardson's new persona
Zairas@gmail.com? He knits!
That's OK, as a child I learned to crochet. My grandmother thought
that working with needle and thread would keep me out of trouble. What
did keep me out of trouble in those years was listening to her tales
about her ancestors. Her grandmother's grandfather was at Yorktown
aboard a French ship.
CED
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <postmaster@netspeed.com.au
To: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: Delivery failure to <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com> ...
When trying to deliver your message, the mail server at
mailhost.netspeed.com.au encountered
problems with the following addresses:
For <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>, Site yahoo.com (4.79.181.15)
said
data:
554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to
andrew_mcclenahan@yahoo.com
cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or
discontinued
[#102]. - mta260.mail.mud.yahoo.com
For a more detailed explanation see
http://netwinsite.com/surgemail/deliver_failed.htm
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C64867.D4ADD030
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="ATT00350.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="ATT00350.dat"
Reporting-MTA: dns; mailhost.netspeed.com.au
Final-Recipient: rfc822;Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-code smtp; Site yahoo.com (4.79.181.15) said data: 554 =
delivery error: dd Sorry your message to andrew_mcclenah
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C64867.D4ADD030
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="Re_ Have you noticed_.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Re_ Have you noticed_.eml"
Received: from Toshiba (unverified [61.69.27.151])
by NSmailhost (SurgeMail 3.7b) with ESMTP id 162137667
for multiple; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:18:24 +1100
Return-Path: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Message-ID: <013701c647ef$e4114250$0300a8c0@Toshiba
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
References: <1142296586.288379.224200@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
1142398030.658612.92490@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:18:26 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com
r=896955829
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?
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
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C64867.D4ADD030--
Hi --
The message you submitted to this list (included above) wasn't
sent to the list subscribers. RootsWeb accepts only plain text
mail. That means that HTML mail, attachments, ``enriched text'',
and a few other formats can't be sent to RootsWeb mailing lists.
You can post your message if you send it in plain text; turn off
the ``Post in HTML'' or ``Enriched Text'' features of your mail
reader, or don't use any attachments. See
http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/listadmins/plaintext.html
for instructions on turning off HTML in most of the popular mail
programs, or ask your ISP's technical support line for help.
We've had to institute this policy because of the problems that
accompany these fancy mail formats. Some people don't have mail
programs that are capable of processing the special file formats.
Even among those who do, different mail programs handle these
special formats in very different and confusing ways. HTML messages
pose special problems to our digested mailing lists. Most of all,
HTML-ified mail and attachments place a considerable burden on
RootsWeb's overworked machines. All in all, mail in this format
produces a lot of problems for RootsWeb's servers and subscribers,
so we find it's best just to use plain text.
-- The RootsWeb staff
-
Gjest
Re: Fw: Fw: Delivery failure to
CED wrote:
CED
One has to question what are the true motives for someone to contact
someone privately when this is a public newsgroup, especially when it
is unsolicited. A public forum is just that, meant for open discussion,
the public exchange of ideas and information. This newsgroup is not
meant to be a private chat room!
"None are so blind as those who will not see!" - If you could,
for a moment, elevate yourself above your perception of Mr. Richardson
behind every post, there is a simple explanation. I have changed my
private e-mail address to thwart spam and the unsolicited
barrage of advertisements. I wish to keep my private address private. I
do not want it publicly displayed for all to see.
Again, I fail to see how your continual diatribe against one person
contributes to the advancement of medieval genealogy. Personnel attacks
against style can never be construed as substance, and it is always
counter productive - at least in my world of academia.
Andrew
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
You can only wonder ---- who is Andrew McClenahan.....
Leo:
Apparently Richardson is playing games. Remember, he has a habit of
playing games when he is uncomfortable. He seems not to want to
respond himself; and having exhausted his friends, he has found some
form of Andrew McClenahan, to ("which" or "whose" ?) post I replied as
follows:
snip
CED
One has to question what are the true motives for someone to contact
someone privately when this is a public newsgroup, especially when it
is unsolicited. A public forum is just that, meant for open discussion,
the public exchange of ideas and information. This newsgroup is not
meant to be a private chat room!
"None are so blind as those who will not see!" - If you could,
for a moment, elevate yourself above your perception of Mr. Richardson
behind every post, there is a simple explanation. I have changed my
private e-mail address to thwart spam and the unsolicited
barrage of advertisements. I wish to keep my private address private. I
do not want it publicly displayed for all to see.
Again, I fail to see how your continual diatribe against one person
contributes to the advancement of medieval genealogy. Personnel attacks
against style can never be construed as substance, and it is always
counter productive - at least in my world of academia.
Andrew
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Fw: Fw: Delivery failure to
Dear Andrew you see it wrong-----again. My e-mail was directed at "all"
Gen-med that public forum as well as to you personally as, after all, it was
meant for you.
I have done this again and I bet yours will come back again.
If you are in the world of academia, I would be concerned about "personnel"
attacks.
If you are concerned about spam, there are other ways to prevent them. By
making yourself not available to individuals you may miss out on the pearls
some people may like to share with you.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Delivery failure to <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com> ...
Gen-med that public forum as well as to you personally as, after all, it was
meant for you.
I have done this again and I bet yours will come back again.
If you are in the world of academia, I would be concerned about "personnel"
attacks.
If you are concerned about spam, there are other ways to prevent them. By
making yourself not available to individuals you may miss out on the pearls
some people may like to share with you.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Delivery failure to <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com> ...
CED wrote:
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
You can only wonder ---- who is Andrew McClenahan.....
Leo:
Apparently Richardson is playing games. Remember, he has a habit of
playing games when he is uncomfortable. He seems not to want to
respond himself; and having exhausted his friends, he has found some
form of Andrew McClenahan, to ("which" or "whose" ?) post I replied as
follows:
snip
CED
One has to question what are the true motives for someone to contact
someone privately when this is a public newsgroup, especially when it
is unsolicited. A public forum is just that, meant for open discussion,
the public exchange of ideas and information. This newsgroup is not
meant to be a private chat room!
"None are so blind as those who will not see!" - If you could,
for a moment, elevate yourself above your perception of Mr. Richardson
behind every post, there is a simple explanation. I have changed my
private e-mail address to thwart spam and the unsolicited
barrage of advertisements. I wish to keep my private address private. I
do not want it publicly displayed for all to see.
Again, I fail to see how your continual diatribe against one person
contributes to the advancement of medieval genealogy. Personnel attacks
against style can never be construed as substance, and it is always
counter productive - at least in my world of academia.
Andrew