Hello list,
Has anyone yet purchased the new revised edition of RD600?
A website description includes the following: "Other much improved immigrants treated in this Note section are Colepeppers (Culpeper) of VA, and Thomas Bradbury of Mass. (this last from the late Marshall Kirk)."
I corresponded with Marshall from time to time about his investigations into various branches of Bradbury's ancestry, including what he characterized as a speculative new line for Bradbury. At the time, Marshall was looking for a place to publish on this line, and I now understand that his essay will soon appear in the Register. Although I know of one or two generations in the proposed line, Marshall didn't want to disclose too much before publication. Does anyone know to which king the new speculative line leads, or any other details?
Dave Morehouse
Hopkins, MN
Revised RD 600/Bradbury
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Brandon
Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
I corresponded with Marshall from time to time about his investigations into various branches of Bradbury's ancestry, including what he characterized as a speculative new line for Bradbury. At the time, Marshall was looking for a place to publish on this line, and I now understand that his essay will soon appear in the Register. Although I know of one or two generations in the proposed line, Marshall didn't want to disclose too much before publication. Does anyone know to which king the new speculative line leads, or any other details?
Not really certain, but I hope it is more substantive than the rest of
Marshall's speculative concoctions.
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
Brandon,
I have Marshall's 'speculative concoction' on the Bendyshe/Bradbury
relationship.
Could you indicate what part of the content is not substantiated by
hard evidence?.
Tony Ingham
John Brandon wrote:
I have Marshall's 'speculative concoction' on the Bendyshe/Bradbury
relationship.
Could you indicate what part of the content is not substantiated by
hard evidence?.
Tony Ingham
John Brandon wrote:
I corresponded with Marshall from time to time about his investigations into various branches of Bradbury's ancestry, including what he characterized as a speculative new line for Bradbury. At the time, Marshall was looking for a place to publish on this line, and I now understand that his essay will soon appear in the Register. Although I know of one or two generations in the proposed line, Marshall didn't want to disclose too much before publication. Does anyone know to which king the new speculative line leads, or any other details?
Not really certain, but I hope it is more substantive than the rest of
Marshall's speculative concoctions.
-
John Brandon
Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
Nice gratuitous slam of a dead person! Does this keep you in the pointless-and-baseless-insult game, John Brandon, aka starbuck95@hotmail.com?
T. Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
Nothing gratuitous about it, T. Stanford. It is an accurate
characterization of Marshall Kirk's writing from my point of view. No
matter how grandiose your language, without certain basic facts proven,
it's still cotton-candy. His over-elaborate prose style actually
detracted from the believability of his arguments. Who could be
bothered to read to the end with so little substance apparent?
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
| > I corresponded with Marshall from time to time about his investigations into various branches of Bradbury's ancestry, including what he characterized as a speculative new line for Bradbury. At the time, Marshall was looking for a place to publish on this line, and I now understand that his essay will soon appear in the Register. Although I know of one or two generations in the proposed line, Marshall didn't want to disclose too much before publication. Does anyone know to which king the new speculative line leads, or any other details?
|
| Not really certain, but I hope it is more substantive than the rest of
| Marshall's speculative concoctions.
Nice gratuitous slam of a dead person! Does this keep you in the pointless-and-baseless-insult game, John Brandon, aka starbuck95@hotmail.com?
T. Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
| > I corresponded with Marshall from time to time about his investigations into various branches of Bradbury's ancestry, including what he characterized as a speculative new line for Bradbury. At the time, Marshall was looking for a place to publish on this line, and I now understand that his essay will soon appear in the Register. Although I know of one or two generations in the proposed line, Marshall didn't want to disclose too much before publication. Does anyone know to which king the new speculative line leads, or any other details?
|
| Not really certain, but I hope it is more substantive than the rest of
| Marshall's speculative concoctions.
Nice gratuitous slam of a dead person! Does this keep you in the pointless-and-baseless-insult game, John Brandon, aka starbuck95@hotmail.com?
T. Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
| > Nice gratuitous slam of a dead person! Does this keep you in the pointless-and-baseless-insult game, John Brandon, aka starbuck95@hotmail.com?
| > T. Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
|
| Nothing gratuitous about it, T. Stanford.
Yes, it IS gratuitous. It was unnecessary, unneeded and added NOTHING to the discussion. It was just an opportunity grabbed to insult someone.
| It is an accurate
| characterization of Marshall Kirk's writing from my point of view.
Your point of view does not, as implied here, of necessity make it accurate.
| No matter how grandiose your language, without certain basic facts proven,
| it's still cotton-candy. His over-elaborate prose style actually
| detracted from the believability of his arguments.
So, because you can't understand him, he's wrong. I'm sure he repented of this grievous sin before the end.
| Who could be
| bothered to read to the end with so little substance apparent?
I, and many, many others. So, we now know whereof Marshall wrote. We know that he had a wealth of supportive data to back up his theses; and that they were neither speculative, nor concoctions.
Serving notice: I shan't continue this debate, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that, by your own admission, you don't read those things which you criticise, because, by your own admission, the style is too advanced for you and/or your tastes. Nor is that the only reason. Now, I feel the need to shower.
Stanford M-B
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
| > Nice gratuitous slam of a dead person! Does this keep you in the pointless-and-baseless-insult game, John Brandon, aka starbuck95@hotmail.com?
| > T. Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
|
| Nothing gratuitous about it, T. Stanford.
Yes, it IS gratuitous. It was unnecessary, unneeded and added NOTHING to the discussion. It was just an opportunity grabbed to insult someone.
| It is an accurate
| characterization of Marshall Kirk's writing from my point of view.
Your point of view does not, as implied here, of necessity make it accurate.
| No matter how grandiose your language, without certain basic facts proven,
| it's still cotton-candy. His over-elaborate prose style actually
| detracted from the believability of his arguments.
So, because you can't understand him, he's wrong. I'm sure he repented of this grievous sin before the end.
| Who could be
| bothered to read to the end with so little substance apparent?
I, and many, many others. So, we now know whereof Marshall wrote. We know that he had a wealth of supportive data to back up his theses; and that they were neither speculative, nor concoctions.
Serving notice: I shan't continue this debate, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that, by your own admission, you don't read those things which you criticise, because, by your own admission, the style is too advanced for you and/or your tastes. Nor is that the only reason. Now, I feel the need to shower.
Stanford M-B
-
John Brandon
Re: Revised RD 600/Bradbury
Now, I feel the need to shower.
No one is interested in your hygiene (or lack of) --