WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
JeffChipman

WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 07 apr 2006 00:51:49

I have been told that at least 4 good examples illustrating Nat's point
have been posted somewhere to the newsgroup. I have been able to
locate 3 items: one from Rhode Island, and two from the UK, plus a 1900
Maine census return. Is there or is there not evidence from 17th
century Virginia? If there is, please re-post it here. I have
requested that several times. I'm not going to wade through a hundred
posts to find it. If you want me to look at it, you're going to have
to help me here. If you don't care if I look at it, I'm going to
assume there is none. I think posting it here is easy enough.

I can think of two common reasons why I haven't seen such evidence:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It's not as strong as the poster wants others to believe.

Did they just bury it somewhere?

JTC

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE? -not a bit

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 apr 2006 01:48:51

JeffChipman wrote:
Is there or is there not evidence from 17th
century Virginia?

(There is a WHOLE ARTICLE addressing the question. Have you read it
yet? No, I thought not. Until you do, you have ZERO ground to demand
additional evidence of others.)


What is YOUR evidence that step- relationships were so infrequent as to
allow them to be ignored? That is the real question. I know they
haven't been posted anywhere among the hundreds of posts. (Which I _did_
take the effort to review. Really, Jeff - as a poster you have a
minimum responsibility of only posting at a level at which you can keep
up. Your continued posting in spite of claiming to be unable to read
all of the responses is unsupportable. It is analogous to demanding
references when you have yet to follow up on the ones you already have -
oh, wait, you are doing that TOO.)

Go ahead, as long as demands for evidence are being made, demand that
this Jeff guy give his evidence. Ask him to support his conclusion. He
has already said that he has no evidence. Are you, a stickler for
evidence, going to let this Jeff guy get away with presenting his
baseless opinion? When are yu going to apply your 'standards of
evidence' to this Jeff guy, who seems to get a free pass. Let's hear it
Jeff, what is you basis for your conclusion? as someone here said:

I think posting it here is easy enough.

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE? -not a bit

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 apr 2006 04:19:19

JeffChipman wrote:
My evidence is that you cannot come up with any.

Your evidence for your version is that someone else doesn't have any.

You admit that you have absolutely ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH evidence, and yet
still pontificate on and on about maintaining a standard of evidence of
"beyond reasonable doubt".

Please do explain in which language or philosophical framework "My
evidence is that you cannot come up with any" could possibly be viewed
as meeting a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Your standard is "whatever I want to be true unless someone can prove me
wrong beyond a reasonable doubt" as you again express here. Such a
standard is both logically flawed and intellectually dishonest.

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE? -not a bit

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 apr 2006 05:01:52

JeffChipman wrote:
I was told to accept Nat's opinion based on Nat's reputation as a
genealogist. I had the nerve to ask Nat for some evidence to back up
his statement. I was then treated to the peurile mumblings and tut
tutting of his friends. "Every knowledgeable genealogist knows that,"
etc.

Which carries more weight, do you think? Nat's opinion based on his
expertise, or yours based on your willful ignorance?

The man who posted those six examples had the guts to reveal the basis
of his opinion, and he cited Fleete, a source I know to be excellent
from personal experience. That his "evidence" helped my argument
considerably I'm sure was unitended.

It didn't, except in your own mind.

I think this term probably really was rarely used to denote "husband of
my step-daughter." I said I didn't think that happened enough to
reject evidence based on the use of the term;

I, Jeff, don't have any evidence on which to base an opinion, but I
think it means what I want it to mean and because I don't have any
evidence whatsoever, I have no contrary evidence: case closed.

There have been significant losses in VA records
over the years, and if somebody can demonstrate a relationship using
those records, I am not going to put an undue burden on them simply
because I know of an archaic variant of a term.

I see. If someone slaps together any old connection, then they get the
benefit of the doubt because it is just _so_ hard that it would be
asking too much that you hold them to any standards of evidence, but if
you want to disprove such a wild-ass guess, then you, my friend will be
held up to the full stringency of the 'beyond reasonable doubt'
standard. Any other way would just not be as much fun.

Please look up the meaning of archaic and explain how a usage
contemporary with the period in question fits that definition. This has
been pointed out to you before, but, oh, right, you can't be bothered to
read all the posts before your own regurgiposting.

If I see something
that leads me to believe that we have such a meaning in a given case,
then I'm going to want to see more records to see if the question can
be resolved.

Same double standard. "There are insufficient records to prove a
connection, so I will pick whatever I want it to be and they you have to
disprove it using those same insufficient records." Nice.


taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE? -not a bit

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 apr 2006 05:02:11

JeffChipman wrote:
Todd, you are a sore loser.

Jeff, you are a first-rate hypocrite. You have no evidence. You Have
No Evidence! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!!

Worst case scenario, for the sake of argument - even were we to assume
that NO ONE has evidence, that there IS NO evidence, that would just
bring everyone down to the level of you, WHO HAVE NO EVIDENCE! How does
that make the other side the loser (and the very fact that you think
this is about winning or losing just shows you to be a juvenile prat,
but that is another story.)


I think this term probably did mean what he says in rare instances.

And what is the basis for this thought, given that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE
and you can't be troubled to look up a study that would, in all
likelihood, contain the evidence?

If I see an
indication that a secondary meaning is intended, then I'm going to want
to see more records.

1) There are no records that allow the true relationship to be
determined independently.

2) We must, then, use the relational statement to make the connection
(because the inability to make the connection would just leave us too
unhappy).

3) The relational statement could mean several things, but I want it to
mean one in particular (or we couldn't make the connection, and that
would make us unhappy).

4) Thus, I will conclude that it means exactly what I want it to (or
else I will be unhappy).

5) I will only question this unsupported but happy conclusion if someone
else shows me records which allow the true relationships to be
determined independently.

6. There are no records that allow the true relationship to be
determined independently.

You must be one happy man!

There have been significant losses in VA records.
I'm not going to place an undue burden on people to meet standards that
I think are unrealistic and unfair.

These are the standards you are applying to those who disagree with you,
though.

Not that this surprises me, but your fallacious standard of 'whatever I
want unless you can prove me wrong' is also conditionally applied.
Those poor unfortunate genealogists of Virginian descent would just have
to end their pedigrees where ever the evidence became insufficient, just
like the rest of us, but this would deprive them of the great dream of
what could be, if only proof were not required. Yes, let's turn a blind
eye to their unsupported crap, because it just wouldn't be fair to hold
them to the same standard everyone else must meet.

Unfair! Unfair! Dispensation from adequate proof is the birthright of
Virginia! Rise up, her sons and daughters and overturn your oppressors
who think that the same rules should apply to all! You have nothing to
lose but your chains!

taf

R. Battle

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE? -not a bit

Legg inn av R. Battle » 07 apr 2006 06:00:12

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, JeffChipman wrote:

<snip>
I think this term probably really was rarely used to denote "husband of
my step-daughter." I said I didn't think that happened enough to
reject evidence based on the use of the term; or that it's use raised
"reasonable doubt."
snip


No one has suggested that the use of "son-in-law" is the thing that raises
doubt, reasonable or otherwise, about the biological connection in
question. The claim is that its use does not *remove* the reasonable
doubt already in existence due to the apparent fact that Dale had an
earlier wife by whom he had issue.

-Robert Battle

Gjest

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 07:33:46

JeffChipman schrieb:

I have been told that at least 4 good examples illustrating Nat's point
have been posted somewhere to the newsgroup. I have been able to
locate 3 items: one from Rhode Island, and two from the UK, plus a 1900
Maine census return. Is there or is there not evidence from 17th
century Virginia? If there is, please re-post it here. I have
requested that several times. I'm not going to wade through a hundred
posts to find it. If you want me to look at it, you're going to have
to help me here. If you don't care if I look at it, I'm going to
assume there is none. I think posting it here is easy enough.

I can think of two common reasons why I haven't seen such evidence:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It's not as strong as the poster wants others to believe.

Did they just bury it somewhere?

Imagine being so stupid that you would deliberately and regularly
blazon your ignorance and incompetence as a genealogist all over an
archived newsgroup.

Actually, we don't need to imagine: Jeff, take a bow, you are one brave
man - you truly have the convictions of your stupidity. Impressive!

Gjest

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 07:37:41

JeffChipman schrieb:

I have been told that at least 4 good examples illustrating Nat's point
have been posted somewhere to the newsgroup. I have been able to
locate 3 items: one from Rhode Island, and two from the UK, plus a 1900
Maine census return. Is there or is there not evidence from 17th
century Virginia? If there is, please re-post it here. I have
requested that several times. I'm not going to wade through a hundred
posts to find it. If you want me to look at it, you're going to have
to help me here. If you don't care if I look at it, I'm going to
assume there is none. I think posting it here is easy enough.

I can think of two common reasons why I haven't seen such evidence:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It's not as strong as the poster wants others to believe.

Did they just bury it somewhere?

Yes, it was cleverly hidden on a public newsgroup in response to your
own posts.

Great idea, by the way: starting a new thread after complaining that
there are so many threads (most of which you started) that your limited
intelligence won't permit you to follow them all. True genius, Jeff.

MAR

Renia

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av Renia » 07 apr 2006 08:47:23

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

JeffChipman schrieb:


I have been told that at least 4 good examples illustrating Nat's point
have been posted somewhere to the newsgroup. I have been able to
locate 3 items: one from Rhode Island, and two from the UK, plus a 1900
Maine census return. Is there or is there not evidence from 17th
century Virginia? If there is, please re-post it here. I have
requested that several times. I'm not going to wade through a hundred
posts to find it. If you want me to look at it, you're going to have
to help me here. If you don't care if I look at it, I'm going to
assume there is none. I think posting it here is easy enough.

I can think of two common reasons why I haven't seen such evidence:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It's not as strong as the poster wants others to believe.

Did they just bury it somewhere?


Yes, it was cleverly hidden on a public newsgroup in response to your
own posts.

Great idea, by the way: starting a new thread after complaining that
there are so many threads (most of which you started) that your limited
intelligence won't permit you to follow them all. True genius, Jeff.

Indeed. And then he demands we send "evidence" to a specific new thread
which he started for that purpose, and when we do, he can't find it.

He should either:
a) use a newsreader
b) use the search facility in GoogleGroups

But he has already established he is far too lazy to do his own work.

JeffChipman

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 07 apr 2006 15:54:30

OK. Nat Taylor made the assertion that this line was "broken" because
the term "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my step-daughter." When
I asked him for proof that the term could mean that, he was unable to
do so. If fact, nobody was able to so so.

Now I'm being told that I must find proof to demonstrate that Nat's
statement, which he cannot back up with anything, is not the case in
the Skipwith instance. I'm lazy, stupid, rude, etc. Apparently the
fact that Nat made the allegation at all means the line is "broken."

This should never have happened. When Nat made the statement back in
2001 he should have had enough integrity to demonstrate the relevance
of his remark so that Joan and readers after her could understand his
reasoning and see how it applied to that case. To give an example,
when I wrote Dr. Greene about the Ward article, I stated some reasons
why (at that time) I thought Ward's thesis was not as persuasive as it
appeared on the surface. Dr. Greene took the time to write me about
the points I had raised and give me his reasons for supporting the Ward
article. Some of it was hard evidence, and some was based upon his
understanding of colonial VA culture. Because the latter is harder to
quantify, I gave the Dale epitaph more points than Dr. Greene did, but
it was not in my view enough to tip the balance in favor of the Carter
camp.

Nat cannot demonstrate the truthfulness of his statement that "sonne in
law" could mean "husband of my step-daughter." He was the one who said
the term could mean that, I didn't. It's up to Nat to provide
evidence. All the vituperation isn't going to change that.

What Nat and his friends are saying is, "Nat challenged the line
because this term could mean 'husband of my step-daughter' in this
situation; now it's your responsibility to show that it didn't."

I asked Nat to provide some evidence that this challenge had merit. I
did so because I have worked with a fair number of VA documents over
the years and I had never seen the term used that way. I asked Nat for
more information in order to to gauge how serious the challenge was. I
felt that if the term was rarely used in this fashion, then I didn't
think that was a credible challenge.

Nat was unable to provide even ONE instance where that was the case.
Not one.

Can Nat Taylor demonstrate that "sonne in law" could ever mean "husband
of my step-daughter" or not? I don't mean in the Skipwith case, I mean
in ANY case.

I'm not going to get into a google search. I did that, so don't create
the impression that there's something in google that supports Nat.

JTC

Mark B

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av Mark B » 07 apr 2006 17:26:02

--- JeffChipman <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
This should never have happened.


Very true. And I'd venture that it would never have
happened if you had allowed yourself to use language
such as "probable" or even "very likely" rather than
"iron-clad." There is room for doubt here, even if
that room is relatively small. Is that so hard to
stomach?

Mark Briscoe

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»