Phillips v. Stewart

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Richard Smyth at Road Run

Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 18 jun 2006 18:13:02

For everyone else but you the matter is settled already by the only logical
conclusion, that I have expounded with proofs.

It is not true that for everyone but Phillips the only logical conclusion is the one that Stewart has advanced. As I understand his position, Phillips argues as follows: Assume that Cawley mistakenly believed that only one wife had previously been attributed to King Peter but that, in fact, he had two wives. That assumption explains why Cawley directed attention to what he (mistakenly) believed to be his discovery about the wives of King Peter. Further, Philips argues that if Cawley believed that he had established as a fact that King Peter had three wifes, Cawley would not have presented that discovery as a query in a footnote. There is nothing illogical that I can see about that line of analysis.

It will doubtless save Stewart time and temper, if I stipulate that I am "no sort of gentleman", and indeed am a "very stupid and/or lying poltroon". None of that affects the logic of the argument.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Chris Phillips

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 18:13:03

Richard Smyth at Road Runner wrote:
It is not true that for everyone but Phillips the only logical conclusion
is the one that Stewart has advanced. As I understand his position, Phillips

argues as follows: Assume that Cawley mistakenly believed that only one
wife had previously been attributed to King Peter but that, in fact, he had
two wives. That assumption explains why Cawley directed attention to what
he (mistakenly) believed to be his discovery about the wives of King Peter.
Further, Philips argues that if Cawley believed that he had established as a
fact that King Peter had three wifes, Cawley would not have presented that
discovery as a query in a footnote. There is nothing illogical that I can
see about that line of analysis.

Thank you. I did rather wonder how Peter Stewart knew that everyone else
agreed with him, considering that not a single person had commented either
way.

I don't know what Charles Cawley was referring to. Something like the
possibility above seems more plausible to me than the view Peter Stewart has
taken. (Note that Peter Stewart is suggesting that Cawley's "discovery" was
that King Peter's two known wives were also married to "Lui von Frizberg",
not that he had three wives.)

But rather than encourage any more pointless, ill-tempered argument about
this, I think the best thing will be simply to ask Charles Cawley what he
was referring to in his Introduction.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jun 2006 18:42:14

I don't know english enough to express myself precisely but it seems to
me that you are picking cherries and quarrels.

«Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of
medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of
the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy...»

I don't care for technicalities about endorsement of content or just
copyrights on frames. When I read that I got expectancies soon
frustrated and I have not until now read a line of straightforward
explanations|excuses|disclaims by sgm or his representative(?) in the
newsgroup.
Somebody is embarassed here and I don't think it is Peter Stewart.

«This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy
and
biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material.»

This was already commented and I will leave it, ... but:

«The files, in HTML format,
are freely available on the Foundation's website (note that some of the

files are very large and may take a while to download through slow
connections).»

This is a clear invitation to ANY reader download the material.
Implicitly it should have been a *good* material guaranteed by an
expert, at least an honest professional and accepted/endorsed by sgm.

« Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on
the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. »

After what I read, this in plain portuguese, translated as I am
capable, is much closer to a plain lie than to a mistatement.
My personal feeling is that mr. Cawley, sgm and mr. Phillips are
already late in a appropriate and required apology.

Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)




"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" escreveu:
For everyone else but you the matter is settled already by the only logical
conclusion, that I have expounded with proofs.

It is not true that for everyone but Phillips the only logical conclusion is the one that Stewart has advanced. As I understand his position, Phillips argues as follows: Assume that Cawley mistakenly believed that only one wife had previously been attributed to King Peter but that, in fact, he had two wives. That assumption explains why Cawley directed attention to what he (mistakenly) believed to be his discovery about the wives of King Peter. Further, Philips argues that if Cawley believed that he had established as a fact that King Peter had three wifes, Cawley would not have presented that discovery as a query in a footnote. There is nothing illogical that I can see about that line of analysis.

It will doubtless save Stewart time and temper, if I stipulate that I am "no sort of gentleman", and indeed am a "very stupid and/or lying poltroon".. None of that affects the logic of the argument.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Chris Phillips

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 19:04:31

Francisco wrote:
<<
« Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on
the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. »

After what I read, this in plain portuguese, translated as I am
capable, is much closer to a plain lie than to a mistatement.
My personal feeling is that mr. Cawley, sgm and mr. Phillips are
already late in a appropriate and required apology.


What makes you think it is a lie - and why do you think I would tell a lie
about it anyway?

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jun 2006 20:47:02

« What makes you think it is a lie - and why do you think I would tell
a lie
about it anyway? »

Please allow me a correction:
" Closer to a plain lie than to a mistatement. "

After all written - also by you - and ES not beeing a contemporary
source, I can not think otherwise.
I am appreciating a fact. The quoted phrase is misleading and untrue.
Normally, I do not like nor want to speculate with motives but once you
choosed to ask me directly I will take my chances on two guesses:
1- Mr. Cawley, sgm and possibly you, wanted to avoid any copyright's
problem with ES;
2- You got somehow *inebriated* being the divulger of the *exciting
news*. Vanity, the mother of most sins.

Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)


Chris Phillips escreveu:
Francisco wrote:

« Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on
the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. »

After what I read, this in plain portuguese, translated as I am
capable, is much closer to a plain lie than to a mistatement.
My personal feeling is that mr. Cawley, sgm and mr. Phillips are
already late in a appropriate and required apology.



What makes you think it is a lie - and why do you think I would tell a lie
about it anyway?

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 21:16:02

Francisco wrote:
<<
After all written - also by you - and ES not beeing a contemporary
source, I can not think otherwise.
I am appreciating a fact. The quoted phrase is misleading and untrue.

What is untrue about it?

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 22:30:44

Leo van de Pas wrote:
ES Schwennicke is not contemporary with medieval times, they were
published
in and after the 1970s.

Leo, whoever said otherwise?

We're discussing this person's claim that my statement:

« Some secondary works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the
emphasis is on
the extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. »

is "closer to a plain lie than to a mistatement".

Surely you can understand that ES is one of the secondary works I am
referring to?

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 23:13:14

Leo van de Pas wrote:
Chris, I am sure I am not the only one who believes ES (Schwennicke
series)
to be flawed.

Yes, but no one has suggested otherwise.

Chris Phillips

Leo van de Pas

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 18 jun 2006 23:24:02

ES Schwennicke is not contemporary with medieval times, they were published
in and after the 1970s.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: Phillips v. Stewart


Francisco wrote:

After all written - also by you - and ES not beeing a contemporary
source, I can not think otherwise.
I am appreciating a fact. The quoted phrase is misleading and untrue.


What is untrue about it?

Chris Phillips







Gjest

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jun 2006 23:43:40

What is untrue about it?

Back to the quoted phrase:
1st Some secondary works have been drawn on to provide a framework, ...
2nd ...but the emphasis is on the extraction of evidence from
contemporary sources.

1st. Not some secondary works but ONE work: ES (not very reliable for
the earlier time frame)
2nd. That emphasis does not show in 'Medieval Lands'

Antecipating your next question:
Where did I get that idea?

As I told you, from what I read, also written by you:

Quoting:
De: Sutliff
Data: Dom. 4 Jun 2006 19:27

I must admit
I am troubled to see Alison Weir used as a source.
..........................

De: Stewart Baldwin
Data: Seg. 5 Jun 2006 05:36

I also noticed a tendancy to use late sources which make some of the
accounts very unreliable in places. Two clear examples are the
treatment of origin legends for Anjou (Tertulle, etc.) and Flanders
(Lideric, etc.) as if they might be historical, using late sources
which contradict earlier, more reliable sources. Also, there are very
serious problems with the early Scandinavian lines, using sources like
Heimskringla and even Saxo(!) as sources for periods much earlier than
they can be seriously considered as reliable. The account of the
early Danish kings, which has been built using ES's awful "Haithabu"
chart as the framework, is a complete mess.

The plan seems to have been to start with ES (and perhaps some other
secondary sources) as a start, and then to insert various
documentation as it was found (often from other secondary sources).

........................
De: Todd A. Farmerie
Data: Ter. 6 Jun 2006 01:09

I note that with the Iberian material, it is a curious mix of modern
research and discredited material, in some cases showing more caution
than most modern writers, in other cases following 17th century fantasy

(derivation of Guzman) or 20th century excess ingenuity (illegitimacy
of
Vermudo II).

......................
De: Chris Phillips
Data: Ter. 6 Jun 2006 09:57

What he says is that Europaische Stammtafeln has been used to provide a

framework, and that primary sources are being used to verify and
supplement
the material from ES. Clearly some other secondary sources have been
used
too, but the overriding emphasis is on documenting everything from
primary
sources.

[My note]
« Some secondary works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but
the emphasis is on the extraction of evidence from contemporary
sources»

" Some secundary works " is understood by a common reader - myself
- as more than one and with none to be detached (to stand out?). Quite
different from your new version.

.................................................
De: Peter Stewart
Data: Sáb. 10 Jun 2006 04:00

Much of it is unexceptionable, since it is simply a rehash of the
tables in
ES with a few (and in proportion to the details given far too few)
snippets
from sources thrown in

................................................
De: pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Data: Dom. 11 Jun 2006 14:19

Its major problem is the use of a
bibliography which is scarce, dated (Runciman), not absolutely (Nicol)
or even not at all (Sturdza) reliable, and of course almost exclusively

in English. The page shows almost no effort to use primary sources.

..............................................
De: WJhon...@aol.com
Data: Sáb. 17 Jun 2006 23:28

Essentially, this entire section, is lifted, intact from secondary and

sometimes conflicting sources, without a single one of those being
cited.

It's really a worse than useless presentation, it's practically, in
fact if
not in intent, plagarism.

................................................
De: WJhon...@aol.com
Data: Dom. 18 Jun 2006 00:29

Once you have realised that applies to
a section, then I personally would ignore that section.
The problem is, that *we* know this, but a random person hitting this
page
would not. They, would assume, that the home page is accurate in its
characterization of the work and method used and assume that the
information on the
Earls River was similarly a reconstruction from primary sources. Which
it
isn't.

[my note]
This is true for most people who follow gen-medieval and of course, not
only for the Earls River.

..........................................

Back to basics:
You, and only you, divulged 'Medieval Lands'.
You and only you, created expectancies that were not fullfilled.
I - and others - may have been naïf but that do not excuse you.
Same thing that show hare on the menu and serve cat.
Beeing that more than evident, you could apologise, or just say
something like "I had no intention to mislead" but you prefer to make
questions about a tree, forgetting the whole forest.

Antecipating your next question:
Wich questions?

« Or perhaps you can share with us some of the errors you spotted? »
« Are you now saying that you think the FMG was wrong to provide
hosting for
Charles Cawley's work? »
« Please can you point out where the FMG claims to "co-hold" the
copyright on
Charles Cawley's work? »
« If you don't have the wherwithal to assess Cawley's work properly,
or can't
be bothered doing so, why do you choose to bandy words about it? »
« Your information about the AGM seems to be incorrect. Where did it
come
from? »
« He is referring to the identity of the second wife of King Peter,
isn't he? »
« Do you agree, or not? »
« Would you particularly recommend any of these opinions to the
author? »
« I think you probably did. Where did you get that impression from? »
« Are you really saying you honestly believe that Charles Cawley was
referring
in his Introduction to his noted query about what a "cryptic" footnote
meant, and presenting this as a major new discovery? »
« Don't you remember how many hundred times people on this
newsgroup have claimed new discoveries on the basis of published
primary
sources? »
« What sense does it make for you to keep saying "your opinion" is
otherwise? »
« As a matter of interest, which family is covered by the ES table,
"ES I/1
table 88", in which the marriage is shown? »
« Do you not see how inconsistent your argument is? »
« Perhaps he had forgotten that Judith's marriage to Peter was in a
different
table in ES? »
« What makes you think it is a lie - and why do you think I would tell
a lie
about it anyway? »
« What is untrue about it? »
« Leo, whoever said otherwise? »
« Surely you can understand that ES is one of the secondary works I am

referring to? »
« Are you misquoting me deliberately, or can you just not be bothered
to check what I said? »

I had no intention to comment the questions but one only observation is
compulsory.
In the very rare instances that the question has any substance - the
best example being the one about the family covered by the ES table -
once you get the answer you do not get back to the subject nor thanks
the information.

Good night and goodbye.
Francisco
(Portugal)





Chris Phillips escreveu:
Francisco wrote:

After all written - also by you - and ES not beeing a contemporary
source, I can not think otherwise.
I am appreciating a fact. The quoted phrase is misleading and untrue.


What is untrue about it?

Chris Phillips

Leo van de Pas

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 18 jun 2006 23:51:01

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: Phillips v. Stewart
<snip>

Thank you. I did rather wonder how Peter Stewart knew that everyone else
agreed with him, considering that not a single person had commented either
way.

Dear Chris,


I grew up with the notion that if you agree you remain silent, if you
disagree you speak up.

In this conversation, in my opinion, the less participants the better. The
whole conversation is becoming too confusing with too many side issues.

Am I wrong by reducing it to the headline? "Chris Phillips suggests we all
should see this great important new website."

By the criticism so far only the words 'new website' remain. And if these
headlines are wrong, this should/could be acknowledged (apology?).

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Leo van de Pas

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 18 jun 2006 23:58:02

Chris, I am sure I am not the only one who believes ES (Schwennicke series)
to be flawed. This is why volume One has been replaced by several new
volumes, in some volumes there are segments with replacement pages for
earlier volumes. I seem to remember how someone several years plainly
displayed how according to ES one person was his/her own grandparent.
Several years ago there was talk about making a site like yours (CP) for ES.
All that I remember was that Peter de Loriol said he was collecting
corrections. If he does I do not know what he did with the information

My understanding was that this new website very much was based on primary
sources.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Phillips v. Stewart


Leo van de Pas wrote:
ES Schwennicke is not contemporary with medieval times, they were
published
in and after the 1970s.

Leo, whoever said otherwise?

We're discussing this person's claim that my statement:

« Some secondary works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the
emphasis is on
the extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. »

is "closer to a plain lie than to a mistatement".

Surely you can understand that ES is one of the secondary works I am
referring to?

Chris Phillips







Leo van de Pas

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 19 jun 2006 00:26:02

Chris-----Am I misquoting you? I don't think I quoted you at all. Read what
I said "Am _I_wrong by reducing" In other words they are my words not
yours. How different is your "Major new online resource" to my "great
important new website"? I can understand that, by now, you have become
rattled but you should stick to the bigger picture, not get side tracked to
minor details.

Is this new website living up to the claims made for it? When two people,
usually in disagreement with each other, both claim that parts of this new
website should be taken off line. Surely, that tells us something?
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Phillips v. Stewart


Leo van de Pas wrote:
Am I wrong by reducing it to the headline? "Chris Phillips suggests we
all
should see this great important new website."

Yes, you are wrong. That's not what I said at all. Are you misquoting me
deliberately, or can you just not be bothered to check what I said?

I described it as a "Major new online resource". That's just a factual
description of "Medieval Lands". I have explained this over and over
again.

If you disagree with what I said, please say which part of it you disagree
with.

Chris Phillips






Peter Stewart

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 00:50:07

Chris Phillips wrote:
Richard Smyth at Road Runner wrote:
It is not true that for everyone but Phillips the only logical conclusion
is the one that Stewart has advanced. As I understand his position, Phillips
argues as follows: Assume that Cawley mistakenly believed that only one
wife had previously been attributed to King Peter but that, in fact, he had
two wives. That assumption explains why Cawley directed attention to what
he (mistakenly) believed to be his discovery about the wives of King Peter.
Further, Philips argues that if Cawley believed that he had established as a
fact that King Peter had three wifes, Cawley would not have presented that
discovery as a query in a footnote. There is nothing illogical that I can
see about that line of analysis.

Thank you. I did rather wonder how Peter Stewart knew that everyone else
agreed with him, considering that not a single person had commented either
way.

I don't know what Charles Cawley was referring to. Something like the
possibility above seems more plausible to me than the view Peter Stewart has
taken. (Note that Peter Stewart is suggesting that Cawley's "discovery" was
that King Peter's two known wives were also married to "Lui von Frizberg",
not that he had three wives.)

But rather than encourage any more pointless, ill-tempered argument about
this, I think the best thing will be simply to ask Charles Cawley what he
was referring to in his Introduction.

Um, no - far from it. Any port in a storm, I suppose, but Phillips has
hit yet another reef this time.

Richard Smyth has not understood the position, he has been bamboozled
into a misstatement of it and Phillips must know this perfectly well,
despite his dishonest attempt to represent it as somehow supporting his
postition in spite of this.

No third wife ever came into it. So much for Richard Smyth's following
the logical thread that he proposes to comment on impartially.

Phillips is simply making it up as he goes along by lamely suggesting
that Cawley might have thought the "traditionally" accepted family
relationships of Peter Orseolo included only one wife. I have SHOWN
that the second marriage, to Judith of Schweinfurt, was not only
included in ES that Cawley used as his pricipal SECONDARY basis for his
alleged "reconstruction" from PRIMARY sources, but also that ES gave
the unsopported precision "April 1055" for this marriage that Cawley
has COPIED.

How many times do you people need to be told, with specific proof, that
there is NOTHING apart from the Lui von Frizburg nonsense that it was
open to Cawley, having consulted ES, to consider a "new discovery" of
his own?

And of course Phillips already has, or through Steve Edwards can
obtain, Cawley's e-mail address. The man reportedly does most of his
work online, so presumably now that he is engaged in his second edition
he will not be far from his computer. How long is it going to take for
Phillips to contact him and regale us with his version of this matter?

Peter Stewart

Debbi Logan

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Debbi Logan » 19 jun 2006 00:55:03

I am curious. Exactly how stupid do you little boys think the average,
ordinary, curious genealogical researcher is? I do not claim any vast
number of acquaintances interested in genealogy, but I do know a few. Not
even one of us is foolish enough to log onto a website--neither one as
polished, well documented and helpful as Leo's Genealogics site, nor one as
self-admittedly incomplete, undocumented and useless as Hull and think, "Oh
my goodness! My researching days are OVER! I found everything right here!"
No-one I know is unaware of the fact that "documenting" one's descent from
Adam and Eve, Krull the Warrior King, or what's-his-name's "creative impulse
" is completely impossible and an exercise in futility. We are quite
capable of figuring out that ES was not written during the lifetime of any
medieval ancestor, and is therefore not a primary source.

Here's what we cannot do. Those of us who live in Po-dunk USA, Australia,
Ecuador, Indonesia, or where-ever, with libraries the size of the guard
shack at the White House, or none at all, cannot go to the original source
to verify the things we find on these websites. We cannot take a day trip
to the archives of the parish church in Any-place, Europe or Some-place, UK
or Where-ever, South America. And most of us, if we did come up with a way
to make the trip couldn't READ anything we found, anyway.

So we rely on and trust YOU. The knowledgeable, experienced researchers who
can make the trip, read the source and steer us in the right direction. Many
of the folks who subscribe to and lurk on this list are probably like me.
TOTALLY CLUELESS. We are here to learn. Contrary to one post, by the time
many of us in America find a link to medieval ancestors--royal, noble,
criminal or servant--we are so engrossed in learning about the history that
the title is meaningless. After all, very few of those in America who find
such a link reap anything but a personal satisfaction that we got one more
generation added to our chart and went back another twenty or so years,
anyway. We just want to go back as far as we can and learn as much as we
can.

I went to the Medieval Lands site. For the majority of its content, I
wouldn't recognize a mistake if it glared at me, or even poked its head out
of my computer screen and bit me. I can read the intro, though. It makes
clear the fact that this is a work in progress. There is more to come.
Corrections. Additions. Revisions. If I, or any-one else, include
information in my database from this site, we will do several things: Most
of us will first write to make sure we have permission to do so. Then we
will add the site to our list of citations for the specific data we use. *I*
will attach a note to that data reminding me that the information came from
a source that needs further verification as to accuracy of the data. Then
when someone I trust can help me to verify the data, I can add that note to
the citation as well. I cannot guarantee that everyone will follow this
routine, but those that don't, know that they are taking the risk of having
faulty data. Few have any intent to publish, and I would hope that most are
willing to include your names on our list of sources, rather than
plagiarizing wholesale.

I would really like to be able to depend on you. If one of you finds
inaccuracies, please let us know. If you find reliable data please let us
know. But, for crying out loud, what you are doing now--all of you--is not
helping anything or anyone.

I am in no position to contribute ANYTHING---unless someone really wants a
case of Tabasco Sauce sent to them, as it is made just down the road from me
All I can do is make sure that I cite you in my data base whenever I use
information gleaned (rough pickings through some of these flaming posts)
from your contributions. And one other thing. I can offer my sincere,
heartfelt gratitude for the things I learn from you, the information you
help to confirm or repudiate.

Now, will you please (pretty please with whipped cream on top) stop playing
little boy "one-upman-ship" and hosing the Internet down with testosterone,
let me wipe out my computer, and get on with something helpful?


Debbi, in Po-dunk, USA (New Iberia, Louisiana)

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 19 jun 2006 01:42:02

Dear Debbi
What a wonderful letter!
Thankyou for expressing my own thoughts so colourfully.
I have hesitated to jump in, because both Peter and Chris are old and valued
contributors and will eventually nut out the problem.
It is a shame though, that it can't be done with less acrimony.
Merilyn Pedrick

-------Original Message-------

From: Debbi Logan
Date: 06/19/06 08:24:45
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Phillips v. Stewart



I am curious. Exactly how stupid do you little boys think the average,
ordinary, curious genealogical researcher is? I do not claim any vast
number of acquaintances interested in genealogy, but I do know a few. Not
even one of us is foolish enough to log onto a website--neither one as
polished, well documented and helpful as Leo's Genealogics site, nor one as
self-admittedly incomplete, undocumented and useless as Hull and think, "Oh
my goodness! My researching days are OVER! I found everything right here!"
No-one I know is unaware of the fact that "documenting" one's descent from
Adam and Eve, Krull the Warrior King, or what's-his-name's "creative impulse
" is completely impossible and an exercise in futility. We are quite
capable of figuring out that ES was not written during the lifetime of any
medieval ancestor, and is therefore not a primary source.

Here's what we cannot do. Those of us who live in Po-dunk USA, Australia,
Ecuador, Indonesia, or where-ever, with libraries the size of the guard
shack at the White House, or none at all, cannot go to the original source
to verify the things we find on these websites. We cannot take a day trip
to the archives of the parish church in Any-place, Europe or Some-place, UK
or Where-ever, South America. And most of us, if we did come up with a way
to make the trip couldn't READ anything we found, anyway.

So we rely on and trust YOU. The knowledgeable, experienced researchers who
can make the trip, read the source and steer us in the right direction. Many
of the folks who subscribe to and lurk on this list are probably like me.
TOTALLY CLUELESS. We are here to learn. Contrary to one post, by the time
many of us in America find a link to medieval ancestors--royal, noble,
criminal or servant--we are so engrossed in learning about the history that
the title is meaningless. After all, very few of those in America who find
such a link reap anything but a personal satisfaction that we got one more
generation added to our chart and went back another twenty or so years,
anyway. We just want to go back as far as we can and learn as much as we
can.

I went to the Medieval Lands site. For the majority of its content, I
wouldn't recognize a mistake if it glared at me, or even poked its head out
of my computer screen and bit me. I can read the intro, though. It makes
clear the fact that this is a work in progress. There is more to come.
Corrections. Additions. Revisions. If I, or any-one else, include
information in my database from this site, we will do several things: Most
of us will first write to make sure we have permission to do so. Then we
will add the site to our list of citations for the specific data we use. *I*
will attach a note to that data reminding me that the information came from
a source that needs further verification as to accuracy of the data. Then
when someone I trust can help me to verify the data, I can add that note to
the citation as well. I cannot guarantee that everyone will follow this
routine, but those that don't, know that they are taking the risk of having
faulty data. Few have any intent to publish, and I would hope that most are
willing to include your names on our list of sources, rather than
plagiarizing wholesale.

I would really like to be able to depend on you. If one of you finds
inaccuracies, please let us know. If you find reliable data please let us
know. But, for crying out loud, what you are doing now--all of you--is not
helping anything or anyone.

I am in no position to contribute ANYTHING---unless someone really wants a
case of Tabasco Sauce sent to them, as it is made just down the road from me
All I can do is make sure that I cite you in my data base whenever I use
information gleaned (rough pickings through some of these flaming posts)
from your contributions. And one other thing. I can offer my sincere,
heartfelt gratitude for the things I learn from you, the information you
help to confirm or repudiate.

Now, will you please (pretty please with whipped cream on top) stop playing
little boy "one-upman-ship" and hosing the Internet down with testosterone,
let me wipe out my computer, and get on with something helpful?


Debbi, in Po-dunk, USA (New Iberia, Louisiana)

Peter Stewart

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 04:20:19

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e74hto$nik$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Am I wrong by reducing it to the headline? "Chris Phillips suggests we
all
should see this great important new website."

Yes, you are wrong. That's not what I said at all. Are you misquoting me
deliberately, or can you just not be bothered to check what I said?

I described it as a "Major new online resource". That's just a factual
description of "Medieval Lands". I have explained this over and over
again.

If you disagree with what I said, please say which part of it you disagree
with.

Chris Phillips

The deceit of this man is proving to be endless: just look up "major" in a
dictionary to see how is is now trying to twist his own plain meaning.

Leo paraphrased the announcement's ehadline "major new online resource" with
the adjectives "great important".

The first definition of "major" in the Oxford Reference Dictionary is:
"greater or relatively great in size of importance".

Is Phillips now trying to represent that he actually meant the Medieval
Lands database was just a relatively big new online resource?

He has been distorting Calwey's plain meaning for days, and so far only
Richard Smyth has come forward with a hopelessly inaccurate attempt to
defend him.

Now he evidently thinks this is a success to build on by distorting the
plain meaning of his own word in a straightforward context.

And he wonder why Francisco might think he could tell a lie....

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 04:36:36

""Merilyn Pedrick"" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4495E46B.000001.02076@MERILYNS...
Dear Debbi
What a wonderful letter!
Thankyou for expressing my own thoughts so colourfully.
I have hesitated to jump in, because both Peter and Chris are old and
valued
contributors and will eventually nut out the problem.
It is a shame though, that it can't be done with less acrimony.

Quite right, Merilyn, although I think Debbi is a little too confident in
the critical acumen of people in general who are new to medieval genealogy &
its online resources.

I started the acrimonious exchanges, out of disgust. I was irate that having
taken the trouble to provide advice to the FMG and Phillips in July last
year I now find them wilfully ignoring it, and Phillips trying to
misrepresent it by selective quotation, in order to compromise me with their
own appalling & inexcusable blunder.

Now this hypocrite tries to claim that I am engaging in "smear and innuendo"
against him!

Why would I not be angry about this? I care for truth and for the
improvement of study in medieval genealogy. All of this is being undermined
by the Medieval Lands fiasco and the dishonest presentation of it. The
debacle is another RFC, only more readily accessible and therefore likely to
be more damaging.

The contentious issues will be "nutted out" when the material is either
withdrawn from the FMG website or covered there by an explicit disclaimer as
to the contents, that I advised last year; and when Phillips admits to his
falsehoods & apologises for his unwarranted insults.

If someone can show me where any statement of mine is untrue and/or any
insult of mine has been unwarranted or misdirected in this controversy, I
shall certainly withdraw it & apologise for it.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 04:42:39

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TJolg.11751$ap3.222@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

The first definition of "major" in the Oxford Reference Dictionary is:
"greater or relatively great in size of importance".

Naturally this should read "greater or relatively great in size or
importance".

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 19 jun 2006 07:11:49

Peter Stewart wrote:
The first definition of "major" in the Oxford Reference Dictionary is:
"greater or relatively great in size of importance".

Naturally this should read "greater or relatively great in size or
importance".

Thank you for quoting the dictionary definition of "major". My dictionary
says "Greater in number, quantity, or extent; more important". It was the
first sense in which I was using it, and not even you can deny that this is
a strictly accurate factual definition of the database. You have said
yourself that its scope is too great for a single author.

Chris Phillips

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 19 jun 2006 07:14:59

francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know english enough to express myself precisely but it seems to
me that you are picking cherries and quarrels.

«Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of
medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of
the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy...»

I don't care for technicalities about endorsement of content or just
copyrights on frames. When I read that I got expectancies soon
frustrated and I have not until now read a line of straightforward
explanations|excuses|disclaims by sgm or his representative(?) in the
newsgroup.
Somebody is embarassed here and I don't think it is Peter Stewart.


After what I read, this in plain portuguese, translated as I am
capable, is much closer to a plain lie than to a mistatement.
My personal feeling is that mr. Cawley, sgm and mr. Phillips are
already late in a appropriate and required apology.


If you really mean sgm (soc.genealogy.medieval) here, and not FMG (the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy: the host of the Medieval Lands
project), then you are operating under a rather severe misconception.
SGM is not an organization or entity that can have representatives nor
offer apologies. SGM is a (virtual) place where discussion takes place.
Demanding an apology of sgm is like requesting comment from Hyde Park
or the Parthenon.

taf

Ginny Wagner

RE: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 19 jun 2006 08:10:02

Well, silly me. I thought when he said from scratch, he
meant he didn't filch from anybody else's database or tree
or pedigree, but started with an empty database and began to
add names, one by one, using the sources he cites. ;-)

Ginny Wagner

"To sit home, read one's favorite newspaper, and scoff at
the misdeeds of the men who do things is easy, but it is
markedly ineffective."
--Theodore Roosevelt

Gjest

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 09:28:32

My mistake.
I wrote sgm - possibly more than once - thinking on FMG. Thank you for
pointing out the error.

Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)


Todd A. Farmerie escreveu:
francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know english enough to express myself precisely but it seems to
me that you are picking cherries and quarrels.

«Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of
medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of
the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy...»

I don't care for technicalities about endorsement of content or just
copyrights on frames. When I read that I got expectancies soon
frustrated and I have not until now read a line of straightforward
explanations|excuses|disclaims by sgm or his representative(?) in the
newsgroup.
Somebody is embarassed here and I don't think it is Peter Stewart.


After what I read, this in plain portuguese, translated as I am
capable, is much closer to a plain lie than to a mistatement.
My personal feeling is that mr. Cawley, sgm and mr. Phillips are
already late in a appropriate and required apology.


If you really mean sgm (soc.genealogy.medieval) here, and not FMG (the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy: the host of the Medieval Lands
project), then you are operating under a rather severe misconception.
SGM is not an organization or entity that can have representatives nor
offer apologies. SGM is a (virtual) place where discussion takes place.
Demanding an apology of sgm is like requesting comment from Hyde Park
or the Parthenon.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 09:32:04

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e75evq$pun$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
The first definition of "major" in the Oxford Reference Dictionary is:
"greater or relatively great in size of importance".

Naturally this should read "greater or relatively great in size or
importance".

Thank you for quoting the dictionary definition of "major". My dictionary
says "Greater in number, quantity, or extent; more important". It was the
first sense in which I was using it, and not even you can deny that this
is
a strictly accurate factual definition of the database. You have said
yourself that its scope is too great for a single author.

That makes it overblown, not "major".

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jun 2006 00:29:26

"Merilyn Pedrick" wrote:
Dear Peter
It is because you "care for truth and for the improvement of study in
medieval genealogy" that you are valued here. It is precisely because of
your disinterest in personalities that keeps our eye on what we are here for
We value your scholarship, and if this means we have to take a bit of a
whipping every now and then, so be it. Hopefully it will sharpen us up and
make us less self-congratulatery (if there's such a word).

Thank you Merilyn. Not being a respecter (respector?) of persons may be
an Australian trait - this certainly seems to run into major (big and,
occasionally, important) misunderstanding elsewhere.

Peter Stewart

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 20 jun 2006 00:58:02

Dear Peter
It is because you "care for truth and for the improvement of study in
medieval genealogy" that you are valued here. It is precisely because of
your disinterest in personalities that keeps our eye on what we are here for
We value your scholarship, and if this means we have to take a bit of a
whipping every now and then, so be it. Hopefully it will sharpen us up and
make us less self-congratulatery (if there's such a word).
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: Peter Stewart
Date: 06/19/06 13:10:01
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Phillips v. Stewart

""Merilyn Pedrick"" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4495E46B.000001.02076@MERILYNS...
Dear Debbi
What a wonderful letter!
Thankyou for expressing my own thoughts so colourfully.
I have hesitated to jump in, because both Peter and Chris are old and
valued
contributors and will eventually nut out the problem.
It is a shame though, that it can't be done with less acrimony.

Quite right, Merilyn, although I think Debbi is a little too confident in
the critical acumen of people in general who are new to medieval genealogy &
its online resources.

I started the acrimonious exchanges, out of disgust. I was irate that having
taken the trouble to provide advice to the FMG and Phillips in July last
year I now find them wilfully ignoring it, and Phillips trying to
misrepresent it by selective quotation, in order to compromise me with their
own appalling & inexcusable blunder.

Now this hypocrite tries to claim that I am engaging in "smear and innuendo"
against him!

Why would I not be angry about this? I care for truth and for the
improvement of study in medieval genealogy. All of this is being undermined
by the Medieval Lands fiasco and the dishonest presentation of it. The
debacle is another RFC, only more readily accessible and therefore likely to
be more damaging.

The contentious issues will be "nutted out" when the material is either
withdrawn from the FMG website or covered there by an explicit disclaimer as
to the contents, that I advised last year; and when Phillips admits to his
falsehoods & apologises for his unwarranted insults.

If someone can show me where any statement of mine is untrue and/or any
insult of mine has been unwarranted or misdirected in this controversy, I
shall certainly withdraw it & apologise for it.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»