Some refs to New England
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
On Mar 12, 9:33 pm, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from spawning flame-wars when the apparently inevitable "one-
star" ratings appear on the google version of this group, posts such
as this one tend to be less than useful than they could be for a
couple of reasons.
Firstly, they give no real indication of what information or discovery
they are intended to convey, and thus may represent a complete waste
of readers' time in following them up.
Secondly - and more importantly - because Google Books is not a static
reference source and differs in availability from site to site (and
Proxy servers are often not available) the links themselves may not be
of any use, particularly from an Archives point of view. This would
thwart even the intent of the original poster - whatever that may be.
A brief description detailing the subject matter and its relevance,
and some recall of the important facts to overcome the risk of a link
not working now or in the future would be far more useful both for
posters and readers.
MA-R
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC05849294&id=n0cJAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA7...
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... J&pg=RA7...
Apart from spawning flame-wars when the apparently inevitable "one-
star" ratings appear on the google version of this group, posts such
as this one tend to be less than useful than they could be for a
couple of reasons.
Firstly, they give no real indication of what information or discovery
they are intended to convey, and thus may represent a complete waste
of readers' time in following them up.
Secondly - and more importantly - because Google Books is not a static
reference source and differs in availability from site to site (and
Proxy servers are often not available) the links themselves may not be
of any use, particularly from an Archives point of view. This would
thwart even the intent of the original poster - whatever that may be.
A brief description detailing the subject matter and its relevance,
and some recall of the important facts to overcome the risk of a link
not working now or in the future would be far more useful both for
posters and readers.
MA-R
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Some refs to New England
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
This post is certainly a valid one. Raw pointers to volatile
URLs are not very useful. A description, adequate to find
the relevant data de novo, should be included.
Doug McDonald
On Mar 12, 9:33 pm, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... J&pg=RA7...
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... J&pg=RA7...
Apart from spawning flame-wars when the apparently inevitable "one-
star" ratings appear on the google version of this group, posts such
as this one tend to be less than useful than they could be for a
couple of reasons.
This post is certainly a valid one. Raw pointers to volatile
URLs are not very useful. A description, adequate to find
the relevant data de novo, should be included.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
On Mar 14, 3:40 pm, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> moaned:
Well, I just checked and, according to the records, apparently this is
still a public discussion group.
Note the words *public*, and *discussion*, and, ah, *group*.
Any old dictionary should have them if further elucidation is required.
Why don't you 'butt out'?
Well, I just checked and, according to the records, apparently this is
still a public discussion group.
Note the words *public*, and *discussion*, and, ah, *group*.
Any old dictionary should have them if further elucidation is required.
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
It's ridiculous for you two to carry on about this. This topic is of
no interest to you, and I achieved all I wanted to do--to point out
two references to New England in an obscure account of an ancient
quarrel--by posting the URLs to two pages.
If anybody is interested in this, they can take appropriate notes. I
could care less if the URLs are invalid three days from now.
There's no point in continuing to reprimand me over this practice
which you happen not to like. I don't care at all that you dislike
it; I will certainly continue to post in just this way. GET LIVES,
PEOPLE.
no interest to you, and I achieved all I wanted to do--to point out
two references to New England in an obscure account of an ancient
quarrel--by posting the URLs to two pages.
If anybody is interested in this, they can take appropriate notes. I
could care less if the URLs are invalid three days from now.
There's no point in continuing to reprimand me over this practice
which you happen not to like. I don't care at all that you dislike
it; I will certainly continue to post in just this way. GET LIVES,
PEOPLE.
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
On Mar 14, 4:20 pm, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ah, another sensible and reasonable response. I have a life, thanks
awfully; that's why I don't spend all my time trawling meaninglessly
through Google Books.
I seldom read your posts because they are usually either obscure or
off-topic or ad hominem; had I wanted to engage with intellects like
yours I would have become a kindergarten teacher. Nevertheless, my
comment was a general one, and was intended to be a helpful
suggestion, not a reprimand. But have it your own way: given that
you're not interested in your posts being read or being useful, one
wonders why you post at all - especially when you also whinge about
the low rating people give to your contributions but appear deaf to
the message that is presumably behind it. Very rum.
It's ridiculous for you two to carry on about this. This topic is of
no interest to you, and I achieved all I wanted to do--to point out
two references to New England in an obscure account of an ancient
quarrel--by posting the URLs to two pages.
If anybody is interested in this, they can take appropriate notes. I
could care less if the URLs are invalid three days from now.
There's no point in continuing to reprimand me over this practice
which you happen not to like. I don't care at all that you dislike
it; I will certainly continue to post in just this way. GET LIVES,
PEOPLE.
Ah, another sensible and reasonable response. I have a life, thanks
awfully; that's why I don't spend all my time trawling meaninglessly
through Google Books.
I seldom read your posts because they are usually either obscure or
off-topic or ad hominem; had I wanted to engage with intellects like
yours I would have become a kindergarten teacher. Nevertheless, my
comment was a general one, and was intended to be a helpful
suggestion, not a reprimand. But have it your own way: given that
you're not interested in your posts being read or being useful, one
wonders why you post at all - especially when you also whinge about
the low rating people give to your contributions but appear deaf to
the message that is presumably behind it. Very rum.
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
I seldom read your posts
I really wish you _never_ read them, 'cause then you would _never_
respond to them.
Whenever we get into a little spat, it is because you have inserted
yourself into one of my threads, never the other way 'round.
-
Terry J Booth
Re: Some refs to New England
Mr. Brandon,
You usually post insightful information on this website, so am disappointed
you choose to ignore useful advice because of an apparent personal
animosity. Flaming the messenger does not change the message.
I too would appreciate your taking the time to raise the quality of your
'URL only' posts to your usually higher displays of scholarship. Without
accompanying advice about value, 'URL only' postings simply clog this
newsgroup with unusable information and demonstrate just 2 simple
abilities - 1) the ability to do a search of the googlebooks or another
website, and 2) the ability to paste the URL address into an email.
I too would much appreciate if you would consider adding your higher level
skills to such postings, and include 3) interpreting and sharing the
significance you believe the link has, and 4) controlling the impulse to
post if that suggests the link has no significance. Since I believe you
already do 4) and regularly demonstrate an excellent ability to do 3), I am
left with the impression that the 'URL only' postings are simply not
intended to enlighten anyone, but only serve to pad the # of emails that
count towards some quota.
I look forward to your continuing positive value to this newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
You usually post insightful information on this website, so am disappointed
you choose to ignore useful advice because of an apparent personal
animosity. Flaming the messenger does not change the message.
I too would appreciate your taking the time to raise the quality of your
'URL only' posts to your usually higher displays of scholarship. Without
accompanying advice about value, 'URL only' postings simply clog this
newsgroup with unusable information and demonstrate just 2 simple
abilities - 1) the ability to do a search of the googlebooks or another
website, and 2) the ability to paste the URL address into an email.
I too would much appreciate if you would consider adding your higher level
skills to such postings, and include 3) interpreting and sharing the
significance you believe the link has, and 4) controlling the impulse to
post if that suggests the link has no significance. Since I believe you
already do 4) and regularly demonstrate an excellent ability to do 3), I am
left with the impression that the 'URL only' postings are simply not
intended to enlighten anyone, but only serve to pad the # of emails that
count towards some quota.
I look forward to your continuing positive value to this newsgroup.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
Why don't you 'butt out'?
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/721 - Release Date: 3/13/2007
4:51 PM
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
I too would appreciate your taking the time to raise the quality of your
'URL only' posts to your usually higher displays of scholarship. Without
accompanying advice about value, 'URL only' postings simply clog this
newsgroup with unusable information and demonstrate just 2 simple
abilities - 1) the ability to do a search of the googlebooks or another
website, and 2) the ability to paste the URL address into an email.
I too would much appreciate if you would consider adding your higher level
skills to such postings, and include 3) interpreting and sharing the
significance you believe the link has, and 4) controlling the impulse to
post if that suggests the link has no significance. Since I believe you
already do 4) and regularly demonstrate an excellent ability to do 3), I am
left with the impression that the 'URL only' postings are simply not
intended to enlighten anyone, but only serve to pad the # of emails that
count towards some quota.
I look forward to your continuing positive value to this newsgroup.
My, you're a forward little thing, aren't you? A total of ten items
posted and then you move on to lecturing me.
And, despite everything you say (much of it quite silly), I'll
continue to post just what I like.
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
On 14 Mrz., 17:03, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the kind note, but I'll continue to look at your
contributions from time to time, because occasionally they are
interesting. And if I have any useful comments, suggestions or
additions to make, I'll continue to do so (this being a public
discussion group and all).
Cheers, MA-R
I seldom read your posts
I really wish you _never_ read them, 'cause then you would _never_
respond to them.
Whenever we get into a little spat, it is because you have inserted
yourself into one of my threads, never the other way 'round.
Thanks for the kind note, but I'll continue to look at your
contributions from time to time, because occasionally they are
interesting. And if I have any useful comments, suggestions or
additions to make, I'll continue to do so (this being a public
discussion group and all).
Cheers, MA-R
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
Thanks for the kind note, but I'll continue to look at your
contributions from time to time, because occasionally they are
interesting. And if I have any useful comments, suggestions or
Here's a suggestion. Send me a private email every time you feel one
of mine is particularly interesting or useful. That way, I'll finally
figure out how to improve myself.
Yeah, right ...
-
Terry J Booth
Re: Some refs to New England
I apologize for being unaware of the positive correlation you have suggested
between the # of posts to this forum, and one's wisdom and size. Including,
presumably, the # of those silly 'URL only' postings.
Ruthless group, this forum. Refreshing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
between the # of posts to this forum, and one's wisdom and size. Including,
presumably, the # of those silly 'URL only' postings.
Ruthless group, this forum. Refreshing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
My, you're a forward little thing, aren't you? A total of ten items
posted and then you move on to lecturing me.
And, despite everything you say (much of it quite silly), I'll
continue to post just what I like.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/721 - Release Date: 3/13/2007
4:51 PM
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
I have found this newsgroup quite useful and am bothered by the attacks being sent back and forth. Take a posting as it is.
If it does work in your research use it. It not, just delete it. The sniping is not worthy of the intent of this newsgroup.
Jim Malone
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
If it does work in your research use it. It not, just delete it. The sniping is not worthy of the intent of this newsgroup.
Jim Malone
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
If it does work in your research use it. It not, just delete it. The sniping is not worthy of the intent of this newsgroup.
This is my basic attitude. Is it really advisable to call for someone
to post much ess in a period of greatly waning interest and
participation? Douglas Richardson has seemingly dropped out, both
Robert Battle and taf hardly post anymore, etc.
The comments of Terry Booth are somewhat ignorant, since my postings
of URLs-only almost always have a discernible meaning for someone who
has studied a lot of early New England lines (has Mr. [? Ms.] Booth?
I wonder.).
To respond to mjcar's always repeated assertions that I'm off-topic:
1) it is permissible to post about American gateway ancestors (which
you always conveniently forget); 2) I've said before that I post here
because this newsgroup is read by many people who publish in the
American genealogical mags (hence my ideas may get a fair amount of
exposure, which is a good thing as I will not be publishing anything
further myself).
Now ... basically ... learn to "like it or lump it" ... people!
-
CE Wood
Re: Some refs to New England
There is so very much material to peruse that I truly appreciate your
postings. As many of us do, I have ancestors from New England. You
have done many a great service by posting these references. You have
done the legwork and discovered books that might have taken decades to
find. It is always worth the time and effort to research books that
may have information of interest to me. So many books; so little
time. Thanks for sharing.
CE Wood
On Mar 12, 2:33 pm, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
postings. As many of us do, I have ancestors from New England. You
have done many a great service by posting these references. You have
done the legwork and discovered books that might have taken decades to
find. It is always worth the time and effort to research books that
may have information of interest to me. So many books; so little
time. Thanks for sharing.
CE Wood
On Mar 12, 2:33 pm, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC05849294&id=n0cJAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA7...
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... J&pg=RA7...
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
On 16 Mrz., 00:01, "CE Wood" <wood...@msn.com> wrote:
I agree with the above entirely, but with respect you are missing the
point of ths issues that have been raised. Mr Brandon truly doesn't
care whether you or any other average poster finds his material useful
or interesting; that is why he is not prepared to spend an extra
thirty seconds in order to put his posts into context. Your
satisfaction (or otherwise) is a by-product. Furthermore, although
you might not realise it, it is a purchase that you are making at a
considerable price. As Mr Brandon himself has noted, the group has
experienced a considerable decline - he attributes it to "waning
interest", and no doubt this is partly so. But much of it is due to
the nature of posters such as Mr Brandon himself. His response to
reasonable suggestions is invariably to abuse the person making the
suggestion. Thus, when Will Johnson adds something useful to one of
"his" posts, the response is "Must you leave your foul skank on
everything?" And when a relatively new poster like Terry Booth,
above, offers some praise and a request for making those posts more
user-friendly, he is told he is "silly" and "a forward little thing".
Do you think that will encourage someone to stay or contribute here?
Would you put up with this in an off-line community? If not, why do
you find it acceptable here?
I do not make this comment simply because I find such behaviour poor:
it has actual consequences. A poster recently observed to me that
Gresham's Law applies equally to discussion groups: bad posters drive
out good. This is exactly what we have seen here. If you are so
concerned to maintain the flow of information about death dates of
mid- 17th century New Englanders (in a *mediaeval genealogy*
discussion group) that you are prepared to turn a blind eye to - or
even praise - this kind of behaviour, then you should not be surprised
that you longer have the benefit of insightful posts by truly expert
mediaeval genealogists such as Rosie Bevan, Chris Phillips, Kay Allen
et al, and you will find that those good posters who have not been put
off by the trollishness of a childish, bitter regular will
nevertheless also fade out because of the consequent drop in
interesting and relevant posts. And you will then have the rump group
that such behaviour deserves. Mr Brandon won't care in the slightest
- will you?
MA-R
There is so very much material to peruse that I truly appreciate your
postings. As many of us do, I have ancestors from New England. You
have done many a great service by posting these references. You have
done the legwork and discovered books that might have taken decades to
find. It is always worth the time and effort to research books that
may have information of interest to me. So many books; so little
time. Thanks for sharing.
CE Wood
I agree with the above entirely, but with respect you are missing the
point of ths issues that have been raised. Mr Brandon truly doesn't
care whether you or any other average poster finds his material useful
or interesting; that is why he is not prepared to spend an extra
thirty seconds in order to put his posts into context. Your
satisfaction (or otherwise) is a by-product. Furthermore, although
you might not realise it, it is a purchase that you are making at a
considerable price. As Mr Brandon himself has noted, the group has
experienced a considerable decline - he attributes it to "waning
interest", and no doubt this is partly so. But much of it is due to
the nature of posters such as Mr Brandon himself. His response to
reasonable suggestions is invariably to abuse the person making the
suggestion. Thus, when Will Johnson adds something useful to one of
"his" posts, the response is "Must you leave your foul skank on
everything?" And when a relatively new poster like Terry Booth,
above, offers some praise and a request for making those posts more
user-friendly, he is told he is "silly" and "a forward little thing".
Do you think that will encourage someone to stay or contribute here?
Would you put up with this in an off-line community? If not, why do
you find it acceptable here?
I do not make this comment simply because I find such behaviour poor:
it has actual consequences. A poster recently observed to me that
Gresham's Law applies equally to discussion groups: bad posters drive
out good. This is exactly what we have seen here. If you are so
concerned to maintain the flow of information about death dates of
mid- 17th century New Englanders (in a *mediaeval genealogy*
discussion group) that you are prepared to turn a blind eye to - or
even praise - this kind of behaviour, then you should not be surprised
that you longer have the benefit of insightful posts by truly expert
mediaeval genealogists such as Rosie Bevan, Chris Phillips, Kay Allen
et al, and you will find that those good posters who have not been put
off by the trollishness of a childish, bitter regular will
nevertheless also fade out because of the consequent drop in
interesting and relevant posts. And you will then have the rump group
that such behaviour deserves. Mr Brandon won't care in the slightest
- will you?
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
As one of the usually silent readers referred to by Peter Stewart in
his excellent post of 28 Sept 2005, could I stick my head above the
parapet and wholeheartedly endorse MA-R's comments.
DC
his excellent post of 28 Sept 2005, could I stick my head above the
parapet and wholeheartedly endorse MA-R's comments.
DC
I agree with the above entirely, but with respect you are missing the
point of ths issues that have been raised. Mr Brandon truly doesn't
care whether you or any other average poster finds his material useful
or interesting; that is why he is not prepared to spend an extra
thirty seconds in order to put his posts into context. Your
satisfaction (or otherwise) is a by-product. Furthermore, although
you might not realise it, it is a purchase that you are making at a
considerable price. As Mr Brandon himself has noted, the group has
experienced a considerable decline - he attributes it to "waning
interest", and no doubt this is partly so. But much of it is due to
the nature of posters such as Mr Brandon himself. His response to
reasonable suggestions is invariably to abuse the person making the
suggestion. Thus, when Will Johnson adds something useful to one of
"his" posts, the response is "Must you leave your foul skank on
everything?" And when a relatively new poster like Terry Booth,
above, offers some praise and a request for making those posts more
user-friendly, he is told he is "silly" and "a forward little thing".
Do you think that will encourage someone to stay or contribute here?
Would you put up with this in an off-line community? If not, why do
you find it acceptable here?
I do not make this comment simply because I find such behaviour poor:
it has actual consequences. A poster recently observed to me that
Gresham's Law applies equally to discussion groups: bad posters drive
out good. This is exactly what we have seen here. If you are so
concerned to maintain the flow of information about death dates of
mid- 17th century New Englanders (in a *mediaeval genealogy*
discussion group) that you are prepared to turn a blind eye to - or
even praise - this kind of behaviour, then you should not be surprised
that you longer have the benefit of insightful posts by truly expert
mediaeval genealogists such as Rosie Bevan, Chris Phillips, Kay Allen
et al, and you will find that those good posters who have not been put
off by the trollishness of a childish, bitter regular will
nevertheless also fade out because of the consequent drop in
interesting and relevant posts. And you will then have the rump group
that such behaviour deserves. Mr Brandon won't care in the slightest
- will you?
MA-R
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173967522.515972.20640@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
No-one has asked you to post less, but rather to post more informatively.
Richardson has been quietly licking his wounds since he made such a fool of
himself over pretending to know French that even he is embarrassed for once.
Tadd is hardly missing, he has posted six times so far this month according
to the Google Groups count - where Brandon (at 50) is more than three times
as frequent as Will Johnson (at 14) whom he absurdly - and as it turns out
hypocritically - accused of posting too much just a while ago.
And why exactly should a medieval genealogy newsgroup reader be expected to
have studied a lot of New England lines?
To post about them AS GATEWAYS, i.e. to something else, that is to medieval
ancestry, but not as ends in themselves as you invariably treat them.
URLs with a bare subject line to elucidate them are NOT "ideas" by
intelligent standards, even to those who may share your marginal (to SGM)
interests: rather they function as notes to yourself that may happen to
prompt ideas in someone who follows them - but if so these are someone
else's ideas, the author's or the reader's, not your own.
Why is it that you get to tell everyone else what to do, repeatedly, while
yet no-one is ever allowed to advise you? Michael has suggested that by
taking a little trouble you could make far more useful contributions here.
Several others have said the same, while one person so far has asserted
(without citing any in particular) that you do make some valuable posts. Why
would you not wish to make more, and to emulate your friend Richardson in at
least parading an attempt to make friends at the same time?
Peter Stewart
news:1173967522.515972.20640@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If it does work in your research use it. It not, just delete it. The
sniping is not worthy of the intent of this newsgroup.
This is my basic attitude. Is it really advisable to call for someone
to post much ess in a period of greatly waning interest and
participation?
No-one has asked you to post less, but rather to post more informatively.
Douglas Richardson has seemingly dropped out, both
Robert Battle and taf hardly post anymore, etc.
Richardson has been quietly licking his wounds since he made such a fool of
himself over pretending to know French that even he is embarrassed for once.
Tadd is hardly missing, he has posted six times so far this month according
to the Google Groups count - where Brandon (at 50) is more than three times
as frequent as Will Johnson (at 14) whom he absurdly - and as it turns out
hypocritically - accused of posting too much just a while ago.
The comments of Terry Booth are somewhat ignorant, since my postings
of URLs-only almost always have a discernible meaning for someone who
has studied a lot of early New England lines (has Mr. [? Ms.] Booth?
I wonder.).
And why exactly should a medieval genealogy newsgroup reader be expected to
have studied a lot of New England lines?
To respond to mjcar's always repeated assertions that I'm off-topic:
1) it is permissible to post about American gateway ancestors (which
you always conveniently forget);
To post about them AS GATEWAYS, i.e. to something else, that is to medieval
ancestry, but not as ends in themselves as you invariably treat them.
2) I've said before that I post here
because this newsgroup is read by many people who publish in the
American genealogical mags (hence my ideas may get a fair amount of
exposure, which is a good thing as I will not be publishing anything
further myself).
URLs with a bare subject line to elucidate them are NOT "ideas" by
intelligent standards, even to those who may share your marginal (to SGM)
interests: rather they function as notes to yourself that may happen to
prompt ideas in someone who follows them - but if so these are someone
else's ideas, the author's or the reader's, not your own.
Now ... basically ... learn to "like it or lump it" ... people!
Why is it that you get to tell everyone else what to do, repeatedly, while
yet no-one is ever allowed to advise you? Michael has suggested that by
taking a little trouble you could make far more useful contributions here.
Several others have said the same, while one person so far has asserted
(without citing any in particular) that you do make some valuable posts. Why
would you not wish to make more, and to emulate your friend Richardson in at
least parading an attempt to make friends at the same time?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173967522.515972.20640@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
PS - all sensible people who publish in American genealogical journals have
a great respect for David Greene, about whom you have been most abominably
and absurdly rude here in the newsgroup. If that is how you mean to exert
influence on these same readers, you must be every bit as vacuous as so many
of your posts.
Peter Stewart
news:1173967522.515972.20640@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If it does work in your research use it. It not, just delete it. The
sniping is not worthy of the intent of this newsgroup.
This is my basic attitude. Is it really advisable to call for someone
to post much ess in a period of greatly waning interest and
participation? Douglas Richardson has seemingly dropped out, both
Robert Battle and taf hardly post anymore, etc.
The comments of Terry Booth are somewhat ignorant, since my postings
of URLs-only almost always have a discernible meaning for someone who
has studied a lot of early New England lines (has Mr. [? Ms.] Booth?
I wonder.).
To respond to mjcar's always repeated assertions that I'm off-topic:
1) it is permissible to post about American gateway ancestors (which
you always conveniently forget); 2) I've said before that I post here
because this newsgroup is read by many people who publish in the
American genealogical mags (hence my ideas may get a fair amount of
exposure, which is a good thing as I will not be publishing anything
further myself).
PS - all sensible people who publish in American genealogical journals have
a great respect for David Greene, about whom you have been most abominably
and absurdly rude here in the newsgroup. If that is how you mean to exert
influence on these same readers, you must be every bit as vacuous as so many
of your posts.
Peter Stewart
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Some refs to New England
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Have the missing posters gone somewhere else, perhaps
a moderated web group where the moderator can exclude the
trolls. If so, where.
Doug McDonald
As Mr Brandon himself has noted, the group has
experienced a considerable decline - he attributes it to "waning
interest", and no doubt this is partly so.
Have the missing posters gone somewhere else, perhaps
a moderated web group where the moderator can exclude the
trolls. If so, where.
Doug McDonald
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
Ah the 'Aussie gang' piles on ... predictably ...
There is really no need for "more informative" posting on my part, as
people who have followed the New England lines will usually know what
is meant. I don't actually try to confuse the rest of you, but I'm
not about to start commenting on everything.
Who is Tadd?
They shouldn't be expected to have studied them, but they should be
prepared to see a discussion of them from time to time, as they are
often gateways (which ARE explicitly allowed by newsgroup rules [how
often does this have to be pointed out?]).
No, that is your interpretation (and it is wrong). For me, the
gateway status to medieval ancestry is always meant to be implied.
Well, that is fine, too. As someone said, "The trick to getting
something done is not to make a fuss over who gets the credit of doing
it."
I don't very often tell people "what to do" and, in fact, I DON'T care
what they do. Michael is always butting into my threads with self-
righteous, condescending "advice" I do not want and will never
follow.
Not that I agree with your put-downs of Douglas, but why would I wish
to emulate behavior that you invariably mock?
No-one has asked you to post less, but rather to post more informatively.
There is really no need for "more informative" posting on my part, as
people who have followed the New England lines will usually know what
is meant. I don't actually try to confuse the rest of you, but I'm
not about to start commenting on everything.
Richardson has been quietly licking his wounds since he made such a fool of
himself over pretending to know French that even he is embarrassed for once.
Tadd is hardly missing, he has posted six times so far this month according
to the Google Groups count - where Brandon (at 50) is more than three times
as frequent as Will Johnson (at 14) whom he absurdly - and as it turns out
hypocritically - accused of posting too much just a while ago.
Who is Tadd?
The comments of Terry Booth are somewhat ignorant, since my postings
of URLs-only almost always have a discernible meaning for someone who
has studied a lot of early New England lines (has Mr. [? Ms.] Booth?
I wonder.).
And why exactly should a medieval genealogy newsgroup reader be expected to
have studied a lot of New England lines?
They shouldn't be expected to have studied them, but they should be
prepared to see a discussion of them from time to time, as they are
often gateways (which ARE explicitly allowed by newsgroup rules [how
often does this have to be pointed out?]).
To post about them AS GATEWAYS, i.e. to something else, that is to medieval
ancestry, but not as ends in themselves as you invariably treat them.
No, that is your interpretation (and it is wrong). For me, the
gateway status to medieval ancestry is always meant to be implied.
URLs with a bare subject line to elucidate them are NOT "ideas" by
intelligent standards, even to those who may share your marginal (to SGM)
interests: rather they function as notes to yourself that may happen to
prompt ideas in someone who follows them - but if so these are someone
else's ideas, the author's or the reader's, not your own.
Well, that is fine, too. As someone said, "The trick to getting
something done is not to make a fuss over who gets the credit of doing
it."
Why is it that you get to tell everyone else what to do, repeatedly, while
yet no-one is ever allowed to advise you? Michael has suggested that by
taking a little trouble you could make far more useful contributions here.
Several others have said the same, while one person so far has asserted
(without citing any in particular) that you do make some valuable posts. Why
would you not wish to make more, and to emulate your friend Richardson in at
least parading an attempt to make friends at the same time?
I don't very often tell people "what to do" and, in fact, I DON'T care
what they do. Michael is always butting into my threads with self-
righteous, condescending "advice" I do not want and will never
follow.
Why would you not wish to make more, and to emulate your friend Richardson >in at least parading an attempt to make friends at the same time?
Not that I agree with your put-downs of Douglas, but why would I wish
to emulate behavior that you invariably mock?
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
suggestion. Thus, when Will Johnson adds something useful to one of
"his" posts, the response is "Must you leave your foul skank on
everything?" And when a relatively new poster like Terry Booth,
above, offers some praise and a request for making those posts more
user-friendly, he is told he is "silly" and "a forward little thing".
Do you think that will encourage someone to stay or contribute here?
Would you put up with this in an off-line community? If not, why do
you find it acceptable here?
You have not quoted me correctly in the above (my original posting had
an American slang term in it--"put your stank on it"--an expression
that has always amused me to some degree).
Terry Booth's comments _were_ forward and very condescending (I'll
reproduce them below so you can see for yourself) ...
I too would appreciate your taking the time to raise the quality of your
'URL only' posts to your usually higher displays of scholarship.
Without
accompanying advice about value, 'URL only' postings simply clog this
newsgroup with unusable information and demonstrate just 2 simple
abilities - 1) the ability to do a search of the googlebooks or
another
website, and 2) the ability to paste the URL address into an email. I
too would much appreciate if you would consider adding your higher
level
skills to such postings, and include 3) interpreting and sharing the
significance you believe the link has, and 4) controlling the impulse
to
post if that suggests the link has no significance. Since I believe
you
already do 4) and regularly demonstrate an excellent ability to do 3),
I am
left with the impression that the 'URL only' postings are simply not
intended to enlighten anyone, but only serve to pad the # of emails
that
count towards some quota.
This sounds to me like a middle school teacher using "positive
reinforcement" on a impressionable student (or something equally
inappropriate coming from someone who had only posted 10 items in his/
her life).
mediaeval genealogists such as Rosie Bevan, Chris Phillips, Kay Allen
et al, and you will find that those good posters who have not been put
It was your good friend and worthy constituent, Peter M. Stewart, who
"turned off" Chris Phillips. And I don't think I can be blamed for
the departure of Rosie Bevan or Kay Allen either (they have both
experienced recent "health issues").
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
Have the missing posters gone somewhere else, perhaps
a moderated web group where the moderator can exclude the
trolls. If so, where.
Still, I doubt a moderator in this sort of group would allow you to
promote your ideas about a desired "return to slavery in these United
States."
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
PS - all sensible people who publish in American genealogical journals have
a great respect for David Greene, about whom you have been most abominably
and absurdly rude here in the newsgroup. If that is how you mean to exert
influence on these same readers, you must be every bit as vacuous as so many
of your posts.
Peter Stewart
I happen to think DLG is a pompous little creep. Exhibit A, he
accepted the Coddington award (only the second one ever given) from
the NEHGS a few months after the forced resignation of Mrs. Jane
Fiske, the gifted NEHGR editor and FASG of many years standing.
Clearly this was a put-down of Mrs. Fiske by the NEHGS, yet Greene
could not resist the fake honor when his vanity was so excited.
Also, his editorial carryings on about the 8 extra pages in the recent
TAG (July '06-- mailed late Feb. 2007): "With these extra pages, we're
the longest of any of the genealogical mags." The extra material
should have gone towards the next issue (already disastrously behind-
schedule). The dumb trick of mailing out the (six-months late) TAG
within a few days of the mailing of NEHGR has also been duly noted.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174054249.756552.121550@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I am a "gang" of one? Is paranoia considered sane in Brandonworld?
People who have followed New England lines intending to publish on the
subject have presumably taken the trouble to research the primary sources
and literature relevant to their study - so that disconnected and peripheral
printed stuff that can be trawled out of Google books with the simplistic
search strings we usually find in your efforts will hardly add a tattle to
their "ideas". For instance, under the subject line "Michael Mitton, gent."
on 14 March you posted without context two URLs resulting from searching for
"gentlemen mackworth cleeve lewis" and "rthur jane mackworth" respectively.
Do you think that would take more than a minute of someone's else's time who
cared about the matter, or tax their intellect? Are you seriously proposing
this brainless pasttime of yours as a substantial contribution to SGM?
A typo for Todd, obviously.
No-one is complaining about DISCUSSION of anything, but rather about the
lack of ratiocination in many of your communications.
No, it is not wrong - can you honestly say you enquire and satisfy yourself
before posting to SGM that the New Englanders you fuss about are actually
"gateways" to known medieval ancestry, or are you just bothering the
newsgroup erratically about anyone from the 17th century or later who has
descendants today, including yourself and/or Anna Nicole Smith?
There is no credit for merely locating names in published material - that is
primitive research assistance provided mainly by the Google search engine if
any credit is to be given. The analysis of what is found may be creditable,
but you rarely venture publicly into this challenge to your abilities and/or
self-esteem.
The other day you told someone to "mind [his] own business, please" - what
could be more self-righteous and condescending?
If you disagree with anything said about Richardson, you are always free to
contest it. We don't seem to receive these posts from you, however, when
Richardson might appreciate the collegial - and of course specific &
detailed - support of a knowledgeable friend. Why is that? The "win friends"
line is mocked because it is so evidently self-serving and untrue, not just
because it comes from a certain individual. It isn't the behaviour of trying
to be friendly that is mocked anyway, but the posturing and pretence about
it.
By the way, note that people who publish in American genealogical journals
are not rushing to endorse the helpfulness and expertise of your posts.
Peter Stewart
news:1174054249.756552.121550@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Ah the 'Aussie gang' piles on ... predictably ...
I am a "gang" of one? Is paranoia considered sane in Brandonworld?
No-one has asked you to post less, but rather to post more informatively.
There is really no need for "more informative" posting on my part, as
people who have followed the New England lines will usually know what
is meant. I don't actually try to confuse the rest of you, but I'm
not about to start commenting on everything.
People who have followed New England lines intending to publish on the
subject have presumably taken the trouble to research the primary sources
and literature relevant to their study - so that disconnected and peripheral
printed stuff that can be trawled out of Google books with the simplistic
search strings we usually find in your efforts will hardly add a tattle to
their "ideas". For instance, under the subject line "Michael Mitton, gent."
on 14 March you posted without context two URLs resulting from searching for
"gentlemen mackworth cleeve lewis" and "rthur jane mackworth" respectively.
Do you think that would take more than a minute of someone's else's time who
cared about the matter, or tax their intellect? Are you seriously proposing
this brainless pasttime of yours as a substantial contribution to SGM?
Richardson has been quietly licking his wounds since he made such a fool
of
himself over pretending to know French that even he is embarrassed for
once.
Tadd is hardly missing, he has posted six times so far this month
according
to the Google Groups count - where Brandon (at 50) is more than three
times
as frequent as Will Johnson (at 14) whom he absurdly - and as it turns
out
hypocritically - accused of posting too much just a while ago.
Who is Tadd?
A typo for Todd, obviously.
The comments of Terry Booth are somewhat ignorant, since my postings
of URLs-only almost always have a discernible meaning for someone who
has studied a lot of early New England lines (has Mr. [? Ms.] Booth?
I wonder.).
And why exactly should a medieval genealogy newsgroup reader be expected
to
have studied a lot of New England lines?
They shouldn't be expected to have studied them, but they should be
prepared to see a discussion of them from time to time, as they are
often gateways (which ARE explicitly allowed by newsgroup rules [how
often does this have to be pointed out?]).
No-one is complaining about DISCUSSION of anything, but rather about the
lack of ratiocination in many of your communications.
To post about them AS GATEWAYS, i.e. to something else, that is to
medieval
ancestry, but not as ends in themselves as you invariably treat them.
No, that is your interpretation (and it is wrong). For me, the
gateway status to medieval ancestry is always meant to be implied.
No, it is not wrong - can you honestly say you enquire and satisfy yourself
before posting to SGM that the New Englanders you fuss about are actually
"gateways" to known medieval ancestry, or are you just bothering the
newsgroup erratically about anyone from the 17th century or later who has
descendants today, including yourself and/or Anna Nicole Smith?
URLs with a bare subject line to elucidate them are NOT "ideas" by
intelligent standards, even to those who may share your marginal (to SGM)
interests: rather they function as notes to yourself that may happen to
prompt ideas in someone who follows them - but if so these are someone
else's ideas, the author's or the reader's, not your own.
Well, that is fine, too. As someone said, "The trick to getting
something done is not to make a fuss over who gets the credit of doing
it."
There is no credit for merely locating names in published material - that is
primitive research assistance provided mainly by the Google search engine if
any credit is to be given. The analysis of what is found may be creditable,
but you rarely venture publicly into this challenge to your abilities and/or
self-esteem.
Why is it that you get to tell everyone else what to do, repeatedly,
while
yet no-one is ever allowed to advise you? Michael has suggested that by
taking a little trouble you could make far more useful contributions
here.
Several others have said the same, while one person so far has asserted
(without citing any in particular) that you do make some valuable posts.
Why
would you not wish to make more, and to emulate your friend Richardson in
at
least parading an attempt to make friends at the same time?
I don't very often tell people "what to do" and, in fact, I DON'T care
what they do. Michael is always butting into my threads with self-
righteous, condescending "advice" I do not want and will never
follow.
The other day you told someone to "mind [his] own business, please" - what
could be more self-righteous and condescending?
Why would you not wish to make more, and to emulate your friend Richardson
in at least parading an attempt to make friends at the same time?
Not that I agree with your put-downs of Douglas, but why would I wish
to emulate behavior that you invariably mock?
If you disagree with anything said about Richardson, you are always free to
contest it. We don't seem to receive these posts from you, however, when
Richardson might appreciate the collegial - and of course specific &
detailed - support of a knowledgeable friend. Why is that? The "win friends"
line is mocked because it is so evidently self-serving and untrue, not just
because it comes from a certain individual. It isn't the behaviour of trying
to be friendly that is mocked anyway, but the posturing and pretence about
it.
By the way, note that people who publish in American genealogical journals
are not rushing to endorse the helpfulness and expertise of your posts.
Peter Stewart
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: Some refs to New England
Hang on - I haven't said a word.
But now that you mention it, just because we can't see you and don't know
where you live, you think you can act like a rude little brat and get away
with it.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: John Brandon
Date: 03/17/07 00:45:36
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
Snip << Ah the 'Aussie gang' piles on ... predictably ... >>
But now that you mention it, just because we can't see you and don't know
where you live, you think you can act like a rude little brat and get away
with it.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: John Brandon
Date: 03/17/07 00:45:36
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
Snip << Ah the 'Aussie gang' piles on ... predictably ... >>
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174056857.281436.238130@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
So we are left to wonder if TAG has maybe rejected some submission from
Brandon in the past, leading to his determination never to publish in the
field again....
The vicious and stupid attack on David Greene last time, that I referred to,
was not about the bitter personal opinions you raise now, but about his
capacities for the work of editing TAG. No-one shared your views then, and I
trust no-one does now.
Peter Stewart
news:1174056857.281436.238130@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
PS - all sensible people who publish in American genealogical journals
have
a great respect for David Greene, about whom you have been most
abominably
and absurdly rude here in the newsgroup. If that is how you mean to exert
influence on these same readers, you must be every bit as vacuous as so
many
of your posts.
Peter Stewart
I happen to think DLG is a pompous little creep. Exhibit A, he
accepted the Coddington award (only the second one ever given) from
the NEHGS a few months after the forced resignation of Mrs. Jane
Fiske, the gifted NEHGR editor and FASG of many years standing.
Clearly this was a put-down of Mrs. Fiske by the NEHGS, yet Greene
could not resist the fake honor when his vanity was so excited.
Also, his editorial carryings on about the 8 extra pages in the recent
TAG (July '06-- mailed late Feb. 2007): "With these extra pages, we're
the longest of any of the genealogical mags." The extra material
should have gone towards the next issue (already disastrously behind-
schedule). The dumb trick of mailing out the (six-months late) TAG
within a few days of the mailing of NEHGR has also been duly noted.
So we are left to wonder if TAG has maybe rejected some submission from
Brandon in the past, leading to his determination never to publish in the
field again....
The vicious and stupid attack on David Greene last time, that I referred to,
was not about the bitter personal opinions you raise now, but about his
capacities for the work of editing TAG. No-one shared your views then, and I
trust no-one does now.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174055035.318744.24010@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
[MA-R had written:]
When last heard from, Chris Phillips was promising to check with Charles
Cawley (about a matter central to the debate between us over the Medieval
Lands database) and to report Cawley's answer back to the newsgroup. He
assumed this would support his side of the argument, on which he had set
great store for his credibility with SGM readers: his silence ever since
that time rather implies the opposite. It is not me who "turned off" the
poster, but his own problem of his own making.
Peter Stewart
news:1174055035.318744.24010@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
[MA-R had written:]
mediaeval genealogists such as Rosie Bevan, Chris Phillips, Kay Allen
et al, and you will find that those good posters who have not been put
It was your good friend and worthy constituent, Peter M. Stewart, who
"turned off" Chris Phillips.
When last heard from, Chris Phillips was promising to check with Charles
Cawley (about a matter central to the debate between us over the Medieval
Lands database) and to report Cawley's answer back to the newsgroup. He
assumed this would support his side of the argument, on which he had set
great store for his credibility with SGM readers: his silence ever since
that time rather implies the opposite. It is not me who "turned off" the
poster, but his own problem of his own making.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174055035.318744.24010@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
snip
[MA-R had written:]
mediaeval genealogists such as Rosie Bevan, Chris Phillips, Kay Allen
et al, and you will find that those good posters who have not been put
It was your good friend and worthy constituent, Peter M. Stewart, who
"turned off" Chris Phillips.
When last heard from, Chris Phillips was promising to check with Charles
Cawley (about a matter central to the debate between us over the Medieval
Lands database) and to report Cawley's answer back to the newsgroup. He
assumed this would support his side of the argument, on which he had set
great store for his credibility with SGM readers: his silence ever since
that time rather implies the opposite. It is not me who "turned off" the
poster, but his own problem of his own making.
Peter Stewart
No, you acted like a complete ass to him, as you have to many others.
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
I'm not going to bother to address all your many untruths and half-
truths and silly sophistical distinctions, but only reiterate that I
see nothing wrong with URL-only postings, and that I will certainly be
making many more of them in future. Take them for what they are
(possibly helpful pointers only)-- I certainly do. And, to repeat
sage advice, "Learn to like it or lump it, people!"
truths and silly sophistical distinctions, but only reiterate that I
see nothing wrong with URL-only postings, and that I will certainly be
making many more of them in future. Take them for what they are
(possibly helpful pointers only)-- I certainly do. And, to repeat
sage advice, "Learn to like it or lump it, people!"
"John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174054249.756552.121550@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Ah the 'Aussie gang' piles on ... predictably ...
I am a "gang" of one? Is paranoia considered sane in Brandonworld?
No-one has asked you to post less, but rather to post more informatively.
There is really no need for "more informative" posting on my part, as
people who have followed the New England lines will usually know what
is meant. I don't actually try to confuse the rest of you, but I'm
not about to start commenting on everything.
People who have followed New England lines intending to publish on the
subject have presumably taken the trouble to research the primary sources
and literature relevant to their study - so that disconnected and peripheral
printed stuff that can be trawled out of Google books with the simplistic
search strings we usually find in your efforts will hardly add a tattle to
their "ideas". For instance, under the subject line "Michael Mitton, gent."
on 14 March you posted without context two URLs resulting from searching for
"gentlemen mackworth cleeve lewis" and "rthur jane mackworth" respectively.
Do you think that would take more than a minute of someone's else's time who
cared about the matter, or tax their intellect? Are you seriously proposing
this brainless pasttime of yours as a substantial
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
where you live, you think you can act like a rude little brat and get away
with it.
Merilyn
And obviously I can get away with it. At least I'm not an aging
bleach-blonded cow in need of several sound pimp-slappings ...
Uh, Pete, for your info... the rest of the Assie gang has arrived.
-
John Higgins
Re: Some refs to New England
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
That's one version, or perception, of why Chris Phillips stopped posting to
the group. Others likely have different impressions or memories of this
matter. In any event, it's regrettable that Chris, along with a number of
other valuable contributors, has chosen to absent himself from the group.
No doubt we each can choose to assign blame as we see fit for this
unfortunate state of events.
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174055035.318744.24010@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
snip
[MA-R had written:]
mediaeval genealogists such as Rosie Bevan, Chris Phillips, Kay Allen
et al, and you will find that those good posters who have not been put
It was your good friend and worthy constituent, Peter M. Stewart, who
"turned off" Chris Phillips.
When last heard from, Chris Phillips was promising to check with Charles
Cawley (about a matter central to the debate between us over the Medieval
Lands database) and to report Cawley's answer back to the newsgroup. He
assumed this would support his side of the argument, on which he had set
great store for his credibility with SGM readers: his silence ever since
that time rather implies the opposite. It is not me who "turned off" the
poster, but his own problem of his own making.
Peter Stewart
That's one version, or perception, of why Chris Phillips stopped posting to
the group. Others likely have different impressions or memories of this
matter. In any event, it's regrettable that Chris, along with a number of
other valuable contributors, has chosen to absent himself from the group.
No doubt we each can choose to assign blame as we see fit for this
unfortunate state of events.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174138614.068575.12020@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The only things that the Australian members of this newsgroup have in common
are the sense to detect frauds and the willingness to call them.
No wonder a few of us have remarked on Brandon's foolish & contemptuous -
not to say comtemptible - behaviour.
Peter Stewart
news:1174138614.068575.12020@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
where you live, you think you can act like a rude little brat and get
away
with it.
Merilyn
And obviously I can get away with it. At least I'm not an aging
bleach-blonded cow in need of several sound pimp-slappings ...
Uh, Pete, for your info... the rest of the Assie gang has arrived.
The only things that the Australian members of this newsgroup have in common
are the sense to detect frauds and the willingness to call them.
No wonder a few of us have remarked on Brandon's foolish & contemptuous -
not to say comtemptible - behaviour.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.276.1174152674.3661.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
So why don't you?
While you are at it, kindly provide an alternative explanation as to the
timing of his departure, and the failure to report back as promised after
consulting with Cawley.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.276.1174152674.3661.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174055035.318744.24010@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
snip
[MA-R had written:]
mediaeval genealogists such as Rosie Bevan, Chris Phillips, Kay Allen
et al, and you will find that those good posters who have not been put
It was your good friend and worthy constituent, Peter M. Stewart, who
"turned off" Chris Phillips.
When last heard from, Chris Phillips was promising to check with Charles
Cawley (about a matter central to the debate between us over the Medieval
Lands database) and to report Cawley's answer back to the newsgroup. He
assumed this would support his side of the argument, on which he had set
great store for his credibility with SGM readers: his silence ever since
that time rather implies the opposite. It is not me who "turned off" the
poster, but his own problem of his own making.
Peter Stewart
That's one version, or perception, of why Chris Phillips stopped posting
to
the group. Others likely have different impressions or memories of this
matter. In any event, it's regrettable that Chris, along with a number of
other valuable contributors, has chosen to absent himself from the group.
No doubt we each can choose to assign blame as we see fit for this
unfortunate state of events.
So why don't you?
While you are at it, kindly provide an alternative explanation as to the
timing of his departure, and the failure to report back as promised after
consulting with Cawley.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
By the way, note that people who publish in American genealogical journals
are not rushing to endorse the helpfulness and expertise of your posts.
Peter Stewart
Just to be fair, John Brandon has made some interesting discoveries.
Hes found a royal descent for Jane Greene, wife of William Poole of
Taunton, Mass.
Hes also upgraded the royal descent for Judith Knapp, wife of William
Hubbard of Ipswich, Mass.
Some of his findings have been included in the Great Migration series
as well.
Leslie
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
<lmahler@att.net> wrote in message
news:1174193749.189349.201030@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I don't doubt this, Leslie - it is precisely because readers know he is
capable of doing better that he was challenged over the kind of
uninformative posts that started this contretemps.
If Brandon really cares for the take-up of his contributions by people who
will publish in the field, he must realise that their research timetables
are not going to be exactly co-ordinated with his own, so that giving a
little background to any discoveries will save them time & trouble if coming
upon his posts later in the archive.
The implicit idea that people have simultaneous research agenda and are
hanging on his posts from day to day is just as absurd as many of his stated
opinions.
Peter Stewart
news:1174193749.189349.201030@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
By the way, note that people who publish in American genealogical
journals
are not rushing to endorse the helpfulness and expertise of your posts.
Peter Stewart
Just to be fair, John Brandon has made some interesting discoveries.
I don't doubt this, Leslie - it is precisely because readers know he is
capable of doing better that he was challenged over the kind of
uninformative posts that started this contretemps.
If Brandon really cares for the take-up of his contributions by people who
will publish in the field, he must realise that their research timetables
are not going to be exactly co-ordinated with his own, so that giving a
little background to any discoveries will save them time & trouble if coming
upon his posts later in the archive.
The implicit idea that people have simultaneous research agenda and are
hanging on his posts from day to day is just as absurd as many of his stated
opinions.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
On 18 Mrz., 04:55, lmah...@att.net wrote:
To be fair, this list is in decline at least in part because Mr
Brandon, having irrationally defamed another useful regular
contributor then replies to her "you think you can act like a rude
little brat and get away with it" thus:
"Obviously I can get away with it. At least I'm not an aging bleach-
blonded cow in need of several sound pimp-slappings".
Are you happy with this?
By the way, note that people who publish in American genealogical journals
are not rushing to endorse the helpfulness and expertise of your posts.
Peter Stewart
Just to be fair, John Brandon has made some interesting discoveries.
Hes found a royal descent for Jane Greene, wife of William Poole of
Taunton, Mass.
Hes also upgraded the royal descent for Judith Knapp, wife of William
Hubbard of Ipswich, Mass.
Some of his findings have been included in the Great Migration series
as well.
Leslie
To be fair, this list is in decline at least in part because Mr
Brandon, having irrationally defamed another useful regular
contributor then replies to her "you think you can act like a rude
little brat and get away with it" thus:
"Obviously I can get away with it. At least I'm not an aging bleach-
blonded cow in need of several sound pimp-slappings".
Are you happy with this?
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
The implicit idea that people have simultaneous research agenda and are
hanging on his posts from day to day is just as absurd as many of his stated
opinions.
Peter Stewart
Of course, they _can_ look in the archives, even if they don't "hang
on" to my posts (something I never believed anyway). So there's
nothing absurd there ... is there?
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
To be fair, this list is in decline at least in part because Mr
Brandon, having irrationally defamed another useful regular
contributor then replies to her "you think you can act like a rude
little brat and get away with it" thus:
"Obviously I can get away with it. At least I'm not an aging bleach-
blonded cow in need of several sound pimp-slappings".
Are you happy with this?
Are you happy with your own whiny delusions of virtue?
Once again, I'll be posting just exactly what I like. If you don't
likey, you can delete. End of discussion.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174231718.163554.44520@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Yes of course there is - just a few days ago you wrote:
"If anybody is interested in this, they can take appropriate notes. I could
care less if the URLs are invalid three days from now."
In other words, people have to be attending to your posts as they are made,
otherwise the unreferenced links might be quite useless to them as far as
you care.
The next day you posted:
"I've said before that I post here because this newsgroup is read by many
people who publish in the American genealogical mags (hence my ideas may get
a fair amount of exposure, which is a good thing as I will not be publishing
anything further myself)."
Whether or not the exposure of your ideas is necessarily good, nothing of
the sort is achieved by URL-only posts if the URL becomes obsolete and the
subject line was not clarified by any input on your part.
Peter Stewart
news:1174231718.163554.44520@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The implicit idea that people have simultaneous research agenda and are
hanging on his posts from day to day is just as absurd as many of his
stated
opinions.
Peter Stewart
Of course, they _can_ look in the archives, even if they don't "hang
on" to my posts (something I never believed anyway). So there's
nothing absurd there ... is there?
Yes of course there is - just a few days ago you wrote:
"If anybody is interested in this, they can take appropriate notes. I could
care less if the URLs are invalid three days from now."
In other words, people have to be attending to your posts as they are made,
otherwise the unreferenced links might be quite useless to them as far as
you care.
The next day you posted:
"I've said before that I post here because this newsgroup is read by many
people who publish in the American genealogical mags (hence my ideas may get
a fair amount of exposure, which is a good thing as I will not be publishing
anything further myself)."
Whether or not the exposure of your ideas is necessarily good, nothing of
the sort is achieved by URL-only posts if the URL becomes obsolete and the
subject line was not clarified by any input on your part.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Some refs to New England
John and Peter
Can we stop this back and forth criticism? Why don't you send notes off-list to each other instead of involving us in your retorts. This is a genealogy forum not an individual critical sparring match.
How about letting this issue drop?
Jim Malone
-----Original Message-----
From: p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174231718.163554.44520@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Yes of course there is - just a few days ago you wrote:
"If anybody is interested in this, they can take appropriate notes. I could
care less if the URLs are invalid three days from now."
In other words, people have to be attending to your posts as they are made,
otherwise the unreferenced links might be quite useless to them as far as
you care.
The next day you posted:
"I've said before that I post here because this newsgroup is read by many
people who publish in the American genealogical mags (hence my ideas may get
a fair amount of exposure, which is a good thing as I will not be publishing
anything further myself)."
Whether or not the exposure of your ideas is necessarily good, nothing of
the sort is achieved by URL-only posts if the URL becomes obsolete and the
subject line was not clarified by any input on your part.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Can we stop this back and forth criticism? Why don't you send notes off-list to each other instead of involving us in your retorts. This is a genealogy forum not an individual critical sparring match.
How about letting this issue drop?
Jim Malone
-----Original Message-----
From: p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174231718.163554.44520@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The implicit idea that people have simultaneous research agenda and are
hanging on his posts from day to day is just as absurd as many of his
stated
opinions.
Peter Stewart
Of course, they _can_ look in the archives, even if they don't "hang
on" to my posts (something I never believed anyway). So there's
nothing absurd there ... is there?
Yes of course there is - just a few days ago you wrote:
"If anybody is interested in this, they can take appropriate notes. I could
care less if the URLs are invalid three days from now."
In other words, people have to be attending to your posts as they are made,
otherwise the unreferenced links might be quite useless to them as far as
you care.
The next day you posted:
"I've said before that I post here because this newsgroup is read by many
people who publish in the American genealogical mags (hence my ideas may get
a fair amount of exposure, which is a good thing as I will not be publishing
anything further myself)."
Whether or not the exposure of your ideas is necessarily good, nothing of
the sort is achieved by URL-only posts if the URL becomes obsolete and the
subject line was not clarified by any input on your part.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Some refs to New England
Dear Jim,
I agree with you and I don't. What Peter is exposing is a genealogical
methodology, apparently a faulty one.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimpup@aol.com>
To: <Gen-Medieval-l@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
I agree with you and I don't. What Peter is exposing is a genealogical
methodology, apparently a faulty one.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimpup@aol.com>
To: <Gen-Medieval-l@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
John and Peter
Can we stop this back and forth criticism? Why don't you send notes
off-list to each other instead of involving us in your retorts. This is a
genealogy forum not an individual critical sparring match.
How about letting this issue drop?
Jim Malone
-----Original Message-----
From: p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174231718.163554.44520@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The implicit idea that people have simultaneous research agenda and are
hanging on his posts from day to day is just as absurd as many of his
stated
opinions.
Peter Stewart
Of course, they _can_ look in the archives, even if they don't "hang
on" to my posts (something I never believed anyway). So there's
nothing absurd there ... is there?
Yes of course there is - just a few days ago you wrote:
"If anybody is interested in this, they can take appropriate notes. I
could
care less if the URLs are invalid three days from now."
In other words, people have to be attending to your posts as they are
made,
otherwise the unreferenced links might be quite useless to them as far as
you care.
The next day you posted:
"I've said before that I post here because this newsgroup is read by many
people who publish in the American genealogical mags (hence my ideas may
get
a fair amount of exposure, which is a good thing as I will not be
publishing
anything further myself)."
Whether or not the exposure of your ideas is necessarily good, nothing of
the sort is achieved by URL-only posts if the URL becomes obsolete and the
subject line was not clarified by any input on your part.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
of
the message
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
<jimpup@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.318.1174252677.3661.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I don't recall any contributions from you on the topic of medieval
genealogy - the one above would seem to give you a percentage of 100% (or
very close to it) off-topic. Even John Brandon does better.
The behaviour of newsgroup contributors is of interest to several people, as
this thread shows.
And happily Brandon does not know my private email address so that he can't
contact me off-list in the unlikely event that he would anyway. I'm sure he
is equally happy about that.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.318.1174252677.3661.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
John and Peter
Can we stop this back and forth criticism? Why don't you send
notes off-list to each other instead of involving us in your retorts.
This is a genealogy forum not an individual critical sparring match.
How about letting this issue drop?
I don't recall any contributions from you on the topic of medieval
genealogy - the one above would seem to give you a percentage of 100% (or
very close to it) off-topic. Even John Brandon does better.
The behaviour of newsgroup contributors is of interest to several people, as
this thread shows.
And happily Brandon does not know my private email address so that he can't
contact me off-list in the unlikely event that he would anyway. I'm sure he
is equally happy about that.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
Whether or not the exposure of your ideas is necessarily good, nothing of
the sort is achieved by URL-only posts if the URL becomes obsolete and the
subject line was not clarified by any input on your part.
Peter Stewart
My word, what a worry wart you are. Don't trouble your pretty little
head about it--I'm sure it will work out just fine. "Heavens! The
work of John Brandon all lost because the URLs suddenly went dead.
What will we DO? Although just yesterday I _was_ implying I hardly
ever read his rubbishy and off-topic postings ..."
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174312248.924266.274870@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
It's not me but you who claim to care that people will get the benefit of
your postings.
Can't you follow a chain of thought for a day on end? The point of this
thread is that there is NOTHING IN YOUR POSTS TO READ. For the most part I
don't open them, not just because they come with your name attached but
because the subject lines advertise that they are of no conceivable interest
to me. So it's perfectly true that I hardly ever open your posts, but I
don't recall implying this yesterday - perhaps you are having another
paranoid delusion, like your deranged idea that your infantile japes have
succeeded in making fun of other posters.
Leslie Mahler must be very proud to have spoken up for you...on the score of
fairness! I note he hasn't shown the gumption to answer M A-R's question,
"Are you happy with this?" Leo is quite right, more people should speak up
about this self-besotted and insufferable moron.
Peter Stewart
news:1174312248.924266.274870@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Whether or not the exposure of your ideas is necessarily good, nothing of
the sort is achieved by URL-only posts if the URL becomes obsolete and
the
subject line was not clarified by any input on your part.
Peter Stewart
My word, what a worry wart you are. Don't trouble your pretty little
head about it--I'm sure it will work out just fine. "Heavens! The
work of John Brandon all lost because the URLs suddenly went dead.
What will we DO?
It's not me but you who claim to care that people will get the benefit of
your postings.
Although just yesterday I _was_ implying I hardly
ever read his rubbishy and off-topic postings ..."
Can't you follow a chain of thought for a day on end? The point of this
thread is that there is NOTHING IN YOUR POSTS TO READ. For the most part I
don't open them, not just because they come with your name attached but
because the subject lines advertise that they are of no conceivable interest
to me. So it's perfectly true that I hardly ever open your posts, but I
don't recall implying this yesterday - perhaps you are having another
paranoid delusion, like your deranged idea that your infantile japes have
succeeded in making fun of other posters.
Leslie Mahler must be very proud to have spoken up for you...on the score of
fairness! I note he hasn't shown the gumption to answer M A-R's question,
"Are you happy with this?" Leo is quite right, more people should speak up
about this self-besotted and insufferable moron.
Peter Stewart
-
Janet Crawford
Re: Some refs to New England
For the most part I
I will also speak up a bit for Mr. Brandon although not particularly
in the terrific manners department. By looking at the url one can tell
exactly what he was searching for. That may not be of interest to me
particularly, but something else in the book might be. If I have time,
I take a quick look at the Table of Contents to see what else might be
in the book; otherwise it is a quick delete and no problem. I delete
far, far more messages that have a subject and text, but are of no
interest to me either. Since the books on Google come and go, it is
nice to be shown a new one that may have helpful information that will
be gone again in a short time, one that I may never have seen
otherwise.
Janet
don't open them, not just because they come with your name attached but
because the subject lines advertise that they are of no conceivable interest
to me.
I will also speak up a bit for Mr. Brandon although not particularly
in the terrific manners department. By looking at the url one can tell
exactly what he was searching for. That may not be of interest to me
particularly, but something else in the book might be. If I have time,
I take a quick look at the Table of Contents to see what else might be
in the book; otherwise it is a quick delete and no problem. I delete
far, far more messages that have a subject and text, but are of no
interest to me either. Since the books on Google come and go, it is
nice to be shown a new one that may have helpful information that will
be gone again in a short time, one that I may never have seen
otherwise.
Janet
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"Janet Crawford" <reojan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.385.1174381734.3661.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
And how would this experience be diminished by his adding some explanation
of the point at issue, or at least a proper citation so that the book & page
can be found again later?
If you happen share Brandon's interests, exactly how much time and trouble
are you saved by clicking on his URL as opposed to typing "arthur jane
mackworth", for instance, into the search field for yourself? Or are you
happy to depend on serendipity? If so, whatever you are doing may be
enjoyabe but it is not disciplined & purposeful research.
If someone posted like Brandon on matters that DID interest me, I would
still not bother to follow the links unless the search string was somehow
arresting & promising of overlooked information, not just of some
generalised sidelight new to Brandon. Google Book is only a digitised, and
at present very hapahzard, library, not a collection of unknown sources.
Everything in it is readily obtainable by myself if & when I chose to look
in the same blindingly obvious way.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.385.1174381734.3661.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
For the most part I
don't open them, not just because they come with your name attached but
because the subject lines advertise that they are of no conceivable
interest
to me.
I will also speak up a bit for Mr. Brandon although not particularly
in the terrific manners department. By looking at the url one can tell
exactly what he was searching for. That may not be of interest to me
particularly, but something else in the book might be. If I have time,
I take a quick look at the Table of Contents to see what else might be
in the book; otherwise it is a quick delete and no problem. I delete
far, far more messages that have a subject and text, but are of no
interest to me either. Since the books on Google come and go, it is
nice to be shown a new one that may have helpful information that will
be gone again in a short time, one that I may never have seen
otherwise.
And how would this experience be diminished by his adding some explanation
of the point at issue, or at least a proper citation so that the book & page
can be found again later?
If you happen share Brandon's interests, exactly how much time and trouble
are you saved by clicking on his URL as opposed to typing "arthur jane
mackworth", for instance, into the search field for yourself? Or are you
happy to depend on serendipity? If so, whatever you are doing may be
enjoyabe but it is not disciplined & purposeful research.
If someone posted like Brandon on matters that DID interest me, I would
still not bother to follow the links unless the search string was somehow
arresting & promising of overlooked information, not just of some
generalised sidelight new to Brandon. Google Book is only a digitised, and
at present very hapahzard, library, not a collection of unknown sources.
Everything in it is readily obtainable by myself if & when I chose to look
in the same blindingly obvious way.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"Janet Crawford" <reojan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.385.1174381734.3661.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
<snip>
By the way, the digitised books don't "go", they just get harder to find in
some cases - by title anyway, although not by a search for content strings.
This is due to the appalling ineptitude of the project managers: books are
contributed from libraries that have perfectly good cataloguing, but the
relevant information is often lost to Google users (along with many pages in
some books) by the negligence of operators who can't always discern even the
correct titles - much less get the authors's names right - and whose hands
or fingers sometimes obscure the text they are supposed to be imaging.
It has gotten so bad (and will only get worse) that if I were in charge I
would be seriously thinking now about scrapping the whole lot & starting
again, with stricter principles of data entry, and/or with more
conscientious recruiting and better training.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.385.1174381734.3661.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
<snip>
Since the books on Google come and go, it is
nice to be shown a new one that may have helpful information that will
be gone again in a short time, one that I may never have seen
otherwise.
By the way, the digitised books don't "go", they just get harder to find in
some cases - by title anyway, although not by a search for content strings.
This is due to the appalling ineptitude of the project managers: books are
contributed from libraries that have perfectly good cataloguing, but the
relevant information is often lost to Google users (along with many pages in
some books) by the negligence of operators who can't always discern even the
correct titles - much less get the authors's names right - and whose hands
or fingers sometimes obscure the text they are supposed to be imaging.
It has gotten so bad (and will only get worse) that if I were in charge I
would be seriously thinking now about scrapping the whole lot & starting
again, with stricter principles of data entry, and/or with more
conscientious recruiting and better training.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
"[S]elf-besotted" and "insufferable"? And here I thought we were no
longer living in the year 1845!
longer living in the year 1845!
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
It has gotten so bad (and will only get worse) that if I were in charge I
would be seriously thinking now about scrapping the whole lot & starting
again, with stricter principles of data entry, and/or with more
conscientious recruiting and better training.
Peter Stewart
I would have thought a mostly house-bound individual wouldn't be
"looking his gift horse in the mouth." There are some problems with
Google Books (I wish they wouldn't even do "snippet view" items,
they're so tanalizing and ultimately frustrating), but I think it's an
excellent tool--particularly helpful for "classic" books with a sub-
standard (or nonexistent) index.
-
Stewart Baldwin
Google books (was: Some refs to New England)
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:38:27 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
I am beginning to wonder if Google Books will even be a positive
advance in the long run. As useful as some of the offerings have been
in the short run, there is still the problem that once a book
allegedly exists in digital form, others are less likely to redo the
digitization, even in cases where it clearly needs to be redone.
Does anybody know if anyone has complained directly to Google about
this shoddiness. If so, did they have a response or did they just
ignore the complaints?
Stewart Baldwin
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
By the way, the digitised books don't "go", they just get harder to find in
some cases - by title anyway, although not by a search for content strings.
This is due to the appalling ineptitude of the project managers: books are
contributed from libraries that have perfectly good cataloguing, but the
relevant information is often lost to Google users (along with many pages in
some books) by the negligence of operators who can't always discern even the
correct titles - much less get the authors's names right - and whose hands
or fingers sometimes obscure the text they are supposed to be imaging.
It has gotten so bad (and will only get worse) that if I were in charge I
would be seriously thinking now about scrapping the whole lot & starting
again, with stricter principles of data entry, and/or with more
conscientious recruiting and better training.
I am beginning to wonder if Google Books will even be a positive
advance in the long run. As useful as some of the offerings have been
in the short run, there is still the problem that once a book
allegedly exists in digital form, others are less likely to redo the
digitization, even in cases where it clearly needs to be redone.
Does anybody know if anyone has complained directly to Google about
this shoddiness. If so, did they have a response or did they just
ignore the complaints?
Stewart Baldwin
-
Denis Beauregard
Re: Google books (was: Some refs to New England)
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:55:35 GMT, Stewart Baldwin
<sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
I don't think so.
I know (and use) 5 sites having scanned books. In some cases, the
same book can be found on 2 of them (thus far, I have not seen 3
sites with the same book). So, I may use:
Sites with online search:
http://books.google.fr/ (yup, I prefer the French interface)
http://www.canadiana.org/ (the older Canadian site, partly done
thanks to subsides)
http://www.nosracines.ca/f/ (same as ourroots.ca, in theory should
focus on local history but has a lot of books that should be
logically on the Canadiana site)
Scanned books, not searchable:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ (they are supposed to prepare a search
interface)
http://bibnum2.banq.qc.ca/bna/numtextes/accueil.htm (in French)
I usually make a search with google (has the larger collection).
Since it may later become a pay-for site, I often download the books.
Sometimes, I go directly to nosracines or canadiana because the
scanning is of better quality (but I prefer the google interface)
and I know they have some family histories I want to check, like
the Roy series about old French families in Quebec.
Sometimes, I do the search from google, find that the book is
searchable but not available online or or unreadable, so I can
download it from another site.
BNF is for the French library, like BANQ is the Quebec library.
I don't know if there is a Canadian library site (national library
merged with national archives to give collectionscanada, but
canadiana and ourroots are private sites). No idea if there is
a US, British, German, etc. site similar to them. But logically,
they would do the scanning themselves because the contract with
google says that they give their rights to google (this is what
the director of BANQ told me).
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1765
<sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
I am beginning to wonder if Google Books will even be a positive
advance in the long run. As useful as some of the offerings have been
in the short run, there is still the problem that once a book
allegedly exists in digital form, others are less likely to redo the
digitization, even in cases where it clearly needs to be redone.
I don't think so.
I know (and use) 5 sites having scanned books. In some cases, the
same book can be found on 2 of them (thus far, I have not seen 3
sites with the same book). So, I may use:
Sites with online search:
http://books.google.fr/ (yup, I prefer the French interface)
http://www.canadiana.org/ (the older Canadian site, partly done
thanks to subsides)
http://www.nosracines.ca/f/ (same as ourroots.ca, in theory should
focus on local history but has a lot of books that should be
logically on the Canadiana site)
Scanned books, not searchable:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ (they are supposed to prepare a search
interface)
http://bibnum2.banq.qc.ca/bna/numtextes/accueil.htm (in French)
I usually make a search with google (has the larger collection).
Since it may later become a pay-for site, I often download the books.
Sometimes, I go directly to nosracines or canadiana because the
scanning is of better quality (but I prefer the google interface)
and I know they have some family histories I want to check, like
the Roy series about old French families in Quebec.
Sometimes, I do the search from google, find that the book is
searchable but not available online or or unreadable, so I can
download it from another site.
BNF is for the French library, like BANQ is the Quebec library.
I don't know if there is a Canadian library site (national library
merged with national archives to give collectionscanada, but
canadiana and ourroots are private sites). No idea if there is
a US, British, German, etc. site similar to them. But logically,
they would do the scanning themselves because the contract with
google says that they give their rights to google (this is what
the director of BANQ told me).
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1765
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174398894.718541.130350@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
The field of medieval genealogy had its serial pests and virulent fools in
1845 too - and English vocabulary hasn't changed or decayed much since then,
as the ignorant & vapid ankle-biter apparently imagines.
Peter Stewart
news:1174398894.718541.130350@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
"[S]elf-besotted" and "insufferable"? And here I thought we were no
longer living in the year 1845!
The field of medieval genealogy had its serial pests and virulent fools in
1845 too - and English vocabulary hasn't changed or decayed much since then,
as the ignorant & vapid ankle-biter apparently imagines.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Some refs to New England
On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Even the Queen stopped referring the P. Charles as "self-besotted" and
"insufferable" about 1990 (folks didn't know exactly what it meant and
were giving her strange looks). All I'm sayin, Peter, is try to be a
little up-to-date in your locutions. You wouldn't want people to
think of you as a fuddy duddy or old fart.
"John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174398894.718541.130350@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
"[S]elf-besotted" and "insufferable"? And here I thought we were no
longer living in the year 1845!
The field of medieval genealogy had its serial pests and virulent fools in
1845 too - and English vocabulary hasn't changed or decayed much since then,
as the ignorant & vapid ankle-biter apparently imagines.
Peter Stewart
Even the Queen stopped referring the P. Charles as "self-besotted" and
"insufferable" about 1990 (folks didn't know exactly what it meant and
were giving her strange looks). All I'm sayin, Peter, is try to be a
little up-to-date in your locutions. You wouldn't want people to
think of you as a fuddy duddy or old fart.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Some refs to New England
On Mar 21, 12:59 am, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My home is very well (indeed over-) stocked with books, from many
years of collecting these without the aid of "gift horses".
The idea that anyone should be uncritically grateful for Google's
inefficient and very badly managed digitisation project is all of a
piece with your silliness in other respects.
In fact the addition of medieval sources and scholarship is lagging
far behind provision of the kind of subject matter that you search for
and find.
Peter Stewart
It has gotten so bad (and will only get worse) that if I were in charge I
would be seriously thinking now about scrapping the whole lot & starting
again, with stricter principles of data entry, and/or with more
conscientious recruiting and better training.
Peter Stewart
I would have thought a mostly house-bound individual wouldn't be
"looking his gift horse in the mouth." There are some problems with
Google Books (I wish they wouldn't even do "snippet view" items,
they're so tanalizing and ultimately frustrating), but I think it's an
excellent tool--particularly helpful for "classic" books with a sub-
standard (or nonexistent) index.
My home is very well (indeed over-) stocked with books, from many
years of collecting these without the aid of "gift horses".
The idea that anyone should be uncritically grateful for Google's
inefficient and very badly managed digitisation project is all of a
piece with your silliness in other respects.
In fact the addition of medieval sources and scholarship is lagging
far behind provision of the kind of subject matter that you search for
and find.
Peter Stewart