Brandon's posts

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Edward Crabtree

Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Edward Crabtree » 20 mar 2007 13:40:08

So true, Peter, I do not open John Brandon's emails either. There is
nothing there to tempt me.

So I just delete them.

Ed Crabtree - Missouri, USA
familyhistorian@kc.rr.com
All outgoing messages checked by AVG Anti-Virus
Updated daily

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 mar 2007 14:52:56

So true, Peter, I do not open John Brandon's emails either. There is
nothing there to tempt me.

So I just delete them.

I sincerely WISH M-AR and Peter would do this as well. 'Twould make
my existence so much easier ...

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 mar 2007 15:05:20

In message of 20 Mar, "Edward Crabtree" <familyhistorian@kc.rr.com> wrote:

So true, Peter, I do not open John Brandon's emails either. There is
nothing there to tempt me.

So I just delete them.

Advanced users use the kill-file facility which is there in all
mail/news software that I've found. Then you don't even see the e-mails
that you have to delete, thereby saving you a mountain of painful
labour.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 mar 2007 15:05:20

In message of 20 Mar, "Edward Crabtree" <familyhistorian@kc.rr.com> wrote:

So true, Peter, I do not open John Brandon's emails either. There is
nothing there to tempt me.

So I just delete them.

Advanced users use the kill-file facility which is there in all
mail/news software that I've found. Then you don't even see the e-mails
that you have to delete, thereby saving you a mountain of painful
labour.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 mar 2007 15:19:43

Advanced users use the kill-file facility which is there in all
mail/news software that I've found. Then you don't even see the e-mails
that you have to delete, thereby saving you a mountain of painful
labour.

hear + bloody + hear

Peter Stewart

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 mar 2007 22:26:34

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174398775.982032.106270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
So true, Peter, I do not open John Brandon's emails either. There is
nothing there to tempt me.

So I just delete them.

I sincerely WISH M-AR and Peter would do this as well. 'Twould make
my existence so much easier ...

Ah yes, but of course in the Brandoncentric universe you could not make your
own existence easier by just deleting messages from MA-R and Peter....

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 mar 2007 22:42:12

Ah yes, but of course in the Brandoncentric universe you could not make your
own existence easier by just deleting messages from MA-R and Peter....

Peter Stewart

Unfortunately you can't do this on Google Groups ...

Peter Stewart

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 mar 2007 00:04:50

On Mar 21, 8:42 am, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ah yes, but of course in the Brandoncentric universe you could not make your
own existence easier by just deleting messages from MA-R and Peter....

Peter Stewart

Unfortunately you can't do this on Google Groups ...

If you think it can't be done, why complain that others don't do it? I
access the newsgroup through Google groups as well as Usenet during
off moments in the course of days spent doing other things on a
computer - but I can't be bothered kill-filing anyone, I simply don't
open posts that I don't expect will interest me (a substantial &
growing percentage nowadays).

In fact you can easily refrain from reading MA-R and myself, or even
expanding our posts to be readable on Google groups.

But unfortunately it takes a skerrick of brainpower to help
yourself....

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 mar 2007 00:14:15

In fact you can easily refrain from reading MA-R and myself, or even
expanding our posts to be readable on Google groups.

But unfortunately it takes a skerrick of brainpower to help
yourself....

Peter Stewart

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

I usually don't read yours, but Michael has an aggravating way of
popping into threads I've started offering his crap moralizations and
perky suggestions about how I could do better. Which is frustrating,
to say the least.

I don't know why you thought you had to join him this time in his
futile attempt to "advise."

Peter Stewart

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 mar 2007 00:35:14

On Mar 21, 10:14 am, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In fact you can easily refrain from reading MA-R and myself, or even
expanding our posts to be readable on Google groups.

But unfortunately it takes a skerrick of brainpower to help
yourself....

Peter Stewart

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

I usually don't read yours, but Michael has an aggravating way of
popping into threads I've started offering his crap moralizations and
perky suggestions about how I could do better. Which is frustrating,
to say the least.

I don't know why you thought you had to join him this time in his
futile attempt to "advise."

I didn't think I "had to" do anything - I write and post to SGM as I
please.

In this case your bilious & twisted responses came to my attention
from another poster who cited an earlier message of mine, about the
need for people to speak up against abuses of the forum and its
readers.

Unlike others who prefer to keep a dignified silence in the face of
jabbering nuisances, I think they need to see how many people are
disgusted by them, and how strongly.

In your case I supposed that some people who publish in American
genealogical journals might be prompted to speak up, putting you back
in your dim & grubby place, but unfortunately all we got from that
quarter were temporising & mistimed remarks about some of your past
efforts (from Leslie Mahler), and a bit of ambiguous smiley-face
indulgence (from Kay Allen). Rum.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 mar 2007 00:44:50

In your case I supposed that some people who publish in American
genealogical journals might be prompted to speak up, putting you back
in your dim & grubby place, but unfortunately all we got from that
quarter were temporising & mistimed remarks about some of your past
efforts (from Leslie Mahler), and a bit of ambiguous smiley-face
indulgence (from Kay Allen). Rum.

Peter Stewart

Fishing about for corroboration from the Americans was feeble, but now
you've insulted them, so perhaps you'll realize nothing much will be
forthcoming from that quarter.

Out of two bilious people, I don't think **I am necessarily the
bilious-est. :-)

Peter Stewart

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 mar 2007 01:26:31

On Mar 21, 10:44 am, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In your case I supposed that some people who publish in American
genealogical journals might be prompted to speak up, putting you back
in your dim & grubby place, but unfortunately all we got from that
quarter were temporising & mistimed remarks about some of your past
efforts (from Leslie Mahler), and a bit of ambiguous smiley-face
indulgence (from Kay Allen). Rum.

Peter Stewart

Fishing about for corroboration from the Americans was feeble, but now
you've insulted them, so perhaps you'll realize nothing much will be
forthcoming from that quarter.

Out of two bilious people, I don't think **I am necessarily the
bilious-est. :-)

Not even close.

You explicitly care for the attention of people who publish in
American journals, apparently disinclined to risk rejection by
submitting your own material to the editors.

To get & keep this attention from respectable scholars you would need
to be considered a worthwhile research assistant AND a fundamentally
decent individual whom they are not ashamed to bother with.

Given your showing here, you refuse to take trouble over the first
criterion while dismally failing the second. The mention of your name
to the editor of an American journal would discredit any person who
admitted to reading & following your posts.

If American readers think the responses from Leslie and Kay were
appropriate to your offenses, as well as a sufficient sounding from
the constituency of published experts in this field, that is not my
problem.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 mar 2007 12:19:38

If American readers think the responses from Leslie and Kay were
appropriate to your offenses, as well as a sufficient sounding from
the constituency of published experts in this field, that is not my
problem.

It is not _your_ problem because it is not _a_ problem. Stop
speculating about what the American genealogical writers must or must
not think of John Brandon. I'm sure this varies widely.

Peter Stewart

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 mar 2007 13:02:08

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174475978.166255.176820@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
If American readers think the responses from Leslie and Kay were
appropriate to your offenses, as well as a sufficient sounding from
the constituency of published experts in this field, that is not my
problem.

It is not _your_ problem because it is not _a_ problem. Stop
speculating about what the American genealogical writers must or must
not think of John Brandon. I'm sure this varies widely.

Of course it's a problem of collegiality if these people are content to see
someone claiming to want, and assuming - with some support - that he has,
their attention behaving so viciously to others.

Silence is consent of a kind, and quite pathetic in this case from newsgroup
regulars; but these silent people who for all we can tell don't even have
the good judgement to despise you have to live with themselves and with the
rest of American genealogical community, happily not with me, so that the
problem isn't mine.

Do you imagine the editors of US genealogical journals don't get to learn
what transpires here after these grossly offensive posts of yours, and who
says - and who doesn't say - what about you? This is a small very world and
you have been fool enough to sling toxic slime around in it.

Once again you purport to tell me what to think and what to post - but of
course I will do as I choose, by my own standards of intelligence and
decency, not by yours.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 mar 2007 14:17:47

On Mar 20, 11:14 pm, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In fact you can easily refrain from reading MA-R and myself, or even
expanding our posts to be readable on Google groups.

But unfortunately it takes a skerrick of brainpower to help
yourself....

Peter Stewart

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

I usually don't read yours, but Michael has an aggravating way of
popping into threads I've started offering his crap moralizations and
perky suggestions about how I could do better. Which is frustrating,
to say the least.

Diddums. This news group is about collegiality. It is a poor
reflection on you and no-one else if you are not interested in co-
operation, or in lifting your game. I would give you advice about you
could do worse if you'd prefer but you seem to be capable of that all
on your lonesome.

As has been noted here before, it is entirely unsurprising that a
public discussion group should exhibit occasions when posters comment
on other poster's submissions with a view to augmenting them or
rendering them more useful. If your fragile ego allowed you to learn
from others perhaps you wouldn't be rated so lowly, but instead you
insist on spurning any assistance in favour of ranting like a clown or
a sociopath - which you are extremely good at. All of this is a
shame, because your genealogical posts [albeit a minority of your
contributions, it seems] show you to be a diligent and useful
researcher, especially when your contributions are relevant to this
group.

I shall continue to look at your posts on the odd occasions that they
might be of interest or on-topic, and will continue to offer you
constructive assistance and advice (gratis), as I try to do in respect
of all other posts and as I am always very grateful to be on the
receiving end of. Afterall, that's why we all come here.

So, instead of whingeing, perhaps, as you choose to phrase it, you
should learn to like or it lump it?

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 mar 2007 15:04:41

Hmm, an interesting display of yet more "crap moralizations" with some
"patronizing BS" thrown in to spice things up ...

1. "collegiality" ... (much as I like Doug, talking repetitively
about this wasn't one of his strong points).
2. "co-operation"
3. "lifting your game" (gag)
4. "I would give you advice ..."
5. "view to augmenting them"
6. "rendering them more useful"
7. "learn from others"
8. "diligent and useful researcher" (gag)
9. "will continue to offer you constructive assistance and advice
(gratis)"

You can stop with that if you like.



Diddums. This news group is about collegiality. It is a poor
reflection on you and no-one else if you are not interested in co-
operation, or in lifting your game. I would give you advice about you
could do worse if you'd prefer but you seem to be capable of that all
on your lonesome.

As has been noted here before, it is entirely unsurprising that a
public discussion group should exhibit occasions when posters comment
on other poster's submissions with a view to augmenting them or
rendering them more useful. If your fragile ego allowed you to learn
from others perhaps you wouldn't be rated so lowly, but instead you
insist on spurning any assistance in favour of ranting like a clown or
a sociopath - which you are extremely good at. All of this is a
shame, because your genealogical posts [albeit a minority of your
contributions, it seems] show you to be a diligent and useful
researcher, especially when your contributions are relevant to this
group.

I shall continue to look at your posts on the odd occasions that they
might be of interest or on-topic, and will continue to offer you
constructive assistance and advice (gratis), as I try to do in respect
of all other posts and as I am always very grateful to be on the
receiving end of. Afterall, that's why we all come here.

So, instead of whingeing, perhaps, as you choose to phrase it, you
should learn to like or it lump it?

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 mar 2007 16:15:02

Do you imagine the editors of US genealogical journals don't get to learn
what transpires here after these grossly offensive posts of yours, and who
says - and who doesn't say - what about you? This is a small very world and
you have been fool enough to sling toxic slime around in it.

Didn't I say I wouldn't be publishing anything further? Anyway, you
show a strong elitist streak by implying "you'll never get anything
published; you haven't sucked up in the proper way, you have offended
_powerful_ people in this field." On the other hand, I feel that
while people may not particularly like someone's behavior, they are
still capable of realizing valuable additions to knowledge when they
see it.

For instance, I think my postings on the first marriage of Agnes
(Master) (Colwell) Gifford [ancestor of William Sargent of Mass.]
would make a neat little note in one of the journals, building on and
"augmenting" the series of articles by G.A. Moriarty first published
in the NEHGR. See

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... d14d87d8f0

_Burke's Landed Gentry_, 18th ed., 3:372, backs me up on this:

"NICHOLAS GIFFARD, of St. James's Abbey, Duston, nr. Northampton, of
which he obtained a grant in fee, 12 Sept. 1545, having previously
held the abbey on leave, m. Agnes (also called Anne, will pr. 28
March, 1584), widow of Richard Colwell, of Feversham, Kent, and dau.
of John Maister (Master), of Sandwich (see 1952 Edn., MASTER of Barrow
Green Court), and d. at Duston, 19 May, 1546, leaving issue ...

[first dau.] Margaret, m. Hugh Sergeant (Sargent), of Courteenhall,
Northants. ...

I also think some of the information on Alice (Freeman) (Thompson)
Parke should see the light of print (Susanna Samwell's third marriage
to John Bill; and also the A2A document I pointed out which mentions
Alice Park in Connecticut [ca. 1640s]).

I could go on ... and on ...

wjhonson

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av wjhonson » 21 mar 2007 20:17:28

Relevant to this thread perhaps, I was mousing around today trying to
find the RD for Judith Knapp alluded to, and found this post
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1146536056

where Douglas Richardson begins by stating:
"The noble John Brandon kindly posted today a weblink"

I have been nominated for Sainthood on wikipedia, I wonder if a Saint
trumps a nobleman?

Or is it important to also have a sword ?

Will Johnson

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 mar 2007 21:07:52

I have been nominated for Sainthood on wikipedia, I wonder if a Saint
trumps a nobleman?

Michael has nominated _himself_ for sainthood, apparently. If he's
ever famous enough to be the subject of a biography it could be
entitled _The Soi-Disant Saint_.

Peter Stewart

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 mar 2007 22:10:45

The post below is surely proof of stupidity if not outright insanity - "I
won't be publishing anything further, but please please please somebody, see
to it that my teensy-weensy discoveries get into print somewhere,
somehow...."

No-one said or implied anything about "sucking up" or about power. Behaving
decently to others, including people in Australia, who have done nothing to
deserve insults is the minimum standard for participating in a civilised,
collegial pursuit. Rudeness can be appropriate - as to yourself or to Paul
Bulkeley, for instance, when behaving like fools or nuisances - but not
always, and not to sensible and polite newsgroup contributors.

You want colleagues to take your discoveries into print, evidently thinking
that information isn't duly recorded until it is on the page. Why? This
newsgroup is archived and can be cited in print. Like the best paper, it is
even acid free - or could be, if you learned to control delinquent urges to
spread your bitterness.

Peter Stewart


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174490102.246764.28520@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Do you imagine the editors of US genealogical journals don't get to learn
what transpires here after these grossly offensive posts of yours, and
who
says - and who doesn't say - what about you? This is a small very world
and
you have been fool enough to sling toxic slime around in it.

Didn't I say I wouldn't be publishing anything further? Anyway, you
show a strong elitist streak by implying "you'll never get anything
published; you haven't sucked up in the proper way, you have offended
_powerful_ people in this field." On the other hand, I feel that
while people may not particularly like someone's behavior, they are
still capable of realizing valuable additions to knowledge when they
see it.

For instance, I think my postings on the first marriage of Agnes
(Master) (Colwell) Gifford [ancestor of William Sargent of Mass.]
would make a neat little note in one of the journals, building on and
"augmenting" the series of articles by G.A. Moriarty first published
in the NEHGR. See

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... d14d87d8f0

_Burke's Landed Gentry_, 18th ed., 3:372, backs me up on this:

"NICHOLAS GIFFARD, of St. James's Abbey, Duston, nr. Northampton, of
which he obtained a grant in fee, 12 Sept. 1545, having previously
held the abbey on leave, m. Agnes (also called Anne, will pr. 28
March, 1584), widow of Richard Colwell, of Feversham, Kent, and dau.
of John Maister (Master), of Sandwich (see 1952 Edn., MASTER of Barrow
Green Court), and d. at Duston, 19 May, 1546, leaving issue ...

[first dau.] Margaret, m. Hugh Sergeant (Sargent), of Courteenhall,
Northants. ...

I also think some of the information on Alice (Freeman) (Thompson)
Parke should see the light of print (Susanna Samwell's third marriage
to John Bill; and also the A2A document I pointed out which mentions
Alice Park in Connecticut [ca. 1640s]).

I could go on ... and on ...

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 mar 2007 22:22:12

The post below is surely proof of stupidity if not outright insanity - "I
won't be publishing anything further, but please please please somebody, see
to it that my teensy-weensy discoveries get into print somewhere,
somehow...."

It was offered as a modest "suggestion" or "possibility," you old
fool. I do think it would be nice to see it in print someday.

You want colleagues to take your discoveries into print, evidently thinking
that information isn't duly recorded until it is on the page. Why? This
newsgroup is archived and can be cited in print. Like the best paper, it is
even acid free - or could be, if you learned to control delinquent urges to
spread your bitterness.

You have wasted many more words on this thread than I have. Who's
having "delinquent urges to spread bitterness" now?

Peter Stewart

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 mar 2007 22:42:45

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174512132.437836.324320@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The post below is surely proof of stupidity if not outright insanity - "I
won't be publishing anything further, but please please please somebody,
see
to it that my teensy-weensy discoveries get into print somewhere,
somehow...."

It was offered as a modest "suggestion" or "possibility," you old
fool. I do think it would be nice to see it in print someday.

So why not submit to an editor? Do you have a compulsive phobia against
seeing your own name on an article?

You want colleagues to take your discoveries into print, evidently
thinking
that information isn't duly recorded until it is on the page. Why? This
newsgroup is archived and can be cited in print. Like the best paper, it
is
even acid free - or could be, if you learned to control delinquent urges
to
spread your bitterness.

You have wasted many more words on this thread than I have. Who's
having "delinquent urges to spread bitterness" now?

I don't consider words, if they are reasonable, to be a waste.

Apparently you fail to realise what I am getting at - SGM is only the tip of
an iceberg (in volume, not temperature) of communication between people who
share interests in the subjects discussed. You are diligently, but
presumably not deliberately, setting yourself outside the pale of
collegiality, so that if people have come across information that might
assist your enquiries they are hardly likely to think it a high priority to
let you know, either privately or publicly.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 mar 2007 23:02:52

So why not submit to an editor? Do you have a compulsive phobia against
seeing your own name on an article?

No, I'm lazy.

Apparently you fail to realise what I am getting at - SGM is only the tip of
an iceberg (in volume, not temperature) of communication between people who
share interests in the subjects discussed. You are diligently, but
presumably not deliberately, setting yourself outside the pale of
collegiality, so that if people have come across information that might
assist your enquiries they are hardly likely to think it a high priority to
let you know, either privately or publicly.

So because I said a few cross things to you, nobody will help me?
Who's spinning in a Stewartcentric world now?

Peter Stewart

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 mar 2007 23:50:38

On Mar 22, 9:02 am, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So why not submit to an editor? Do you have a compulsive phobia against
seeing your own name on an article?

No, I'm lazy.

Apparently you fail to realise what I am getting at - SGM is only the tip of
an iceberg (in volume, not temperature) of communication between people who
share interests in the subjects discussed. You are diligently, but
presumably not deliberately, setting yourself outside the pale of
collegiality, so that if people have come across information that might
assist your enquiries they are hardly likely to think it a high priority to
let you know, either privately or publicly.

So because I said a few cross things to you, nobody will help me?
Who's spinning in a Stewartcentric world now?

This has nothing to do with your misfired insults about me - no-one
could imagine that I am hurt by these in the first place, or as much
to the point that I am involved in communications on the subject that
interest you.

No-one in his or her right mind would help a person who is so
irrational, juvenile and personally unhinged as to attack David and
Merilyn in the ways you have done recently.

No sensible & reputable person involved in American genealogical
publishing would wish to tarnish themselves by associating with you
privately.

They may prefer to keep quiet on SGM over this brou-haha - and others
can of course make up their own minds about the collegial propriety of
silence in these circumstances - but that doesn't mean they won't
discuss your antics off-list with due contempt.

And by the way, a 'modest "suggestion" or "possibility"' wouldn't
require a screed (by your standards) with citations and hyperlinks.
You were pleading for exposure of your morsels in print, whether you
care to admit this or not.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 22 mar 2007 15:02:40

They may prefer to keep quiet on SGM over this brou-haha - and others
can of course make up their own minds about the collegial propriety of
silence in these circumstances - but that doesn't mean they won't
discuss your antics off-list with due contempt.

Oooooooh brutal. "Others are gossiping about you off-list, so you'll
never be taken seriously."

Peter Stewart

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 mar 2007 22:04:07

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174572160.511923.25920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
They may prefer to keep quiet on SGM over this brou-haha - and others
can of course make up their own minds about the collegial propriety of
silence in these circumstances - but that doesn't mean they won't
discuss your antics off-list with due contempt.

Oooooooh brutal. "Others are gossiping about you off-list, so you'll
never be taken seriously."

Do you think the readers of this newsgroup were all born yesterday?

If you don't realise that genealogy is a collegial pursuit you can't have
done much work at it - masses of scattered details are never going to be
collected, verified, collated and analysed by a single person even for his
or her own complete ancestry. Scholars in this field are co-dependents, like
it or not. That is why this newsgroup exists The alternative is to become a
lonely rat-bag who imagines that he is exempt from the good or bad opinions
of others - and of course you are well on your way.

Also, no-one swallows the feeble lie about being lazy as the cause for your
deciding never to publish again. This might be a reason for not publishing
to a short deadline, a time-limited excuse from day to day, but cannot
rationally justify a decision in principle for the whole future. Even the
tortoise will get over the line after the hare eventually: the amount of
work you do in SGM posts would achieve a finished product over not much
time, indeed with little or no extra effort, especially given the very small
scale of reference in the notes that you want exposed.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Brandon's posts

Legg inn av John Brandon » 22 mar 2007 22:30:44

This doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

If you don't realise that genealogy is a collegial pursuit you can't have
done much work at it - masses of scattered details are never going to be
collected, verified, collated and analysed by a single person even for his
or her own complete ancestry. Scholars in this field are co-dependents, like
it or not. That is why this newsgroup exists The alternative is to become a
lonely rat-bag who imagines that he is exempt from the good or bad opinions
of others - and of course you are well on your way.

Also, no-one swallows the feeble lie about being lazy as the cause for your
deciding never to publish again. This might be a reason for not publishing
to a short deadline, a time-limited excuse from day to day, but cannot
rationally justify a decision in principle for the whole future. Even the
tortoise will get over the line after the hare eventually: the amount of
work you do in SGM posts would achieve a finished product over not much
time, indeed with little or no extra effort, especially given the very small
scale of reference in the notes that you want exposed.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»