Dear Will Johnson.
All information as quoted from Lancashire P/R by
Farrer.
Paul Bulkley
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mai ... _spam.html
Avilia (d)William Lancaster
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
taf
Re: Avilia (d)William Lancaster
On Apr 6, 9:15 am, paul bulkley <designecono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
P/R ?
It might be easier to find with the full name.
taf
Dear Will Johnson.
All information as quoted from Lancashire P/R by
Farrer.
P/R ?
It might be easier to find with the full name.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Avilia (d)William Lancaster
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1175880305.147376.250550@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Yes, it might - the reference is presumably to _The Lancashire Pipe Rolls of
31 Henry I., A.D. 1130, and of the Reigns of Henry II., A.D. 1155-1189;
Richard I., A.D. 1189-1199; and King John, A.D. 1199-1216_ edited by William
Farrer (Liverpool, 1902).
Posting in illiterate telegraphese is an old trick for Bulkley, apparently
designed to impress readers that since he is so familiar with sources nobody
else can need to verify his statements, and/or anybody else who doesn't know
what he is referring to is not in a position to bandy words with him.
He resorts to something like ordinary, comprehensible prose when he is
complaining about posters who may disagree with him, but not otherwise.
Peter Stewart
news:1175880305.147376.250550@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 9:15 am, paul bulkley <designecono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Will Johnson.
All information as quoted from Lancashire P/R by
Farrer.
P/R ?
It might be easier to find with the full name.
Yes, it might - the reference is presumably to _The Lancashire Pipe Rolls of
31 Henry I., A.D. 1130, and of the Reigns of Henry II., A.D. 1155-1189;
Richard I., A.D. 1189-1199; and King John, A.D. 1199-1216_ edited by William
Farrer (Liverpool, 1902).
Posting in illiterate telegraphese is an old trick for Bulkley, apparently
designed to impress readers that since he is so familiar with sources nobody
else can need to verify his statements, and/or anybody else who doesn't know
what he is referring to is not in a position to bandy words with him.
He resorts to something like ordinary, comprehensible prose when he is
complaining about posters who may disagree with him, but not otherwise.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Avilia (d)William Lancaster
It might be easier to find with the full name.
Yes, it might - the reference is presumably to _The Lancashire Pipe Rolls of
31 Henry I., A.D. 1130, and of the Reigns of Henry II., A.D. 1155-1189;
Richard I., A.D. 1189-1199; and King John, A.D. 1199-1216_ edited by William
Farrer (Liverpool, 1902).
Posting in illiterate telegraphese is an old trick for Bulkley, apparently
designed to impress readers that since he is so familiar with sources nobody
else can need to verify his statements, and/or anybody else who doesn't know
what he is referring to is not in a position to bandy words with him.
He resorts to something like ordinary, comprehensible prose when he is
complaining about posters who may disagree with him, but not otherwise.
Peter Stewart
Don't you ever get tired of beating up on those weaker than you (at
least intellectually ... well, presumably ...)? I think you are here
(assuming you are an "actual" person as opposed to a ghost writer used
to cheerlead in subtle ways for your real identity) merely to vent
spleen (and, presumably, to elicit spleen from others against which to
vent more of your own).
With taf, you can usually tell that he is trying to be helpful even
when he becomes somewhat irritated and sharp (that seems to be just
part and parcel of the general tafian charm [is that a word?, tafian I
mean]). Remember all those responses he actually wrote and posted to
crackpots like the Tinneys, etc.? Did anyone else even read what they
wrote?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Avilia (d)William Lancaster
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175962487.764355.104210@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Yet more self pity from Brandon - who evidently includes himself amongst his
"presumably" weaker targets.
In the context I am puzzled by this, however, even given his usual levels of
glibness & wrong-headedness, as I can't see what intellectual strength he
imagines is required merely to name a book that the writer has consulted, or
at least wishes to represent himself as having consulted.
The problem with Bulkley's posts of the kind I commented on is more about
sincerity in pursuit of facts than power of analysing evidence.
What _can_ this mean, if my supposed "real identity" is camouflaged behind
an assumed one?
This is absurd, whatever bias is affecting perceptions. For years I have put
in as much time & effort trying to be helpful here on questoins of medieval
genealogy as anyone else, and certainly far more than Brandon.
What can this matter to you, after admitting that you use the newsgroup to
write notes to yourself?
Todd read them and responded as he - and for that matter I - thought
appropriate. He is the person who has contributed most to this forum, and
(consequently, to some extent) he has as much nonsense to put up with here
as anyone else. Irritated & sharp responses from time to time are fair
enough. It is gratuitous insults, such as Brandon's habitual bile, that are
unfair and a result of ulterior motives in coming to this newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
news:1175962487.764355.104210@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It might be easier to find with the full name.
Yes, it might - the reference is presumably to _The Lancashire Pipe Rolls
of
31 Henry I., A.D. 1130, and of the Reigns of Henry II., A.D. 1155-1189;
Richard I., A.D. 1189-1199; and King John, A.D. 1199-1216_ edited by
William
Farrer (Liverpool, 1902).
Posting in illiterate telegraphese is an old trick for Bulkley,
apparently
designed to impress readers that since he is so familiar with sources
nobody
else can need to verify his statements, and/or anybody else who doesn't
know
what he is referring to is not in a position to bandy words with him.
He resorts to something like ordinary, comprehensible prose when he is
complaining about posters who may disagree with him, but not otherwise.
Peter Stewart
Don't you ever get tired of beating up on those weaker than you (at
least intellectually ... well, presumably ...)?
Yet more self pity from Brandon - who evidently includes himself amongst his
"presumably" weaker targets.
In the context I am puzzled by this, however, even given his usual levels of
glibness & wrong-headedness, as I can't see what intellectual strength he
imagines is required merely to name a book that the writer has consulted, or
at least wishes to represent himself as having consulted.
The problem with Bulkley's posts of the kind I commented on is more about
sincerity in pursuit of facts than power of analysing evidence.
I think you are here (assuming you are an "actual" person as
opposed to a ghost writer used to cheerlead in subtle ways for your
real identity)
What _can_ this mean, if my supposed "real identity" is camouflaged behind
an assumed one?
merely to vent spleen (and, presumably, to elicit spleen from others
against which to vent more of your own).
This is absurd, whatever bias is affecting perceptions. For years I have put
in as much time & effort trying to be helpful here on questoins of medieval
genealogy as anyone else, and certainly far more than Brandon.
With taf, you can usually tell that he is trying to be helpful even
when he becomes somewhat irritated and sharp (that seems to be just
part and parcel of the general tafian charm [is that a word?, tafian I
mean]). Remember all those responses he actually wrote and posted to
crackpots like the Tinneys, etc.? Did anyone else even read what they
wrote?
What can this matter to you, after admitting that you use the newsgroup to
write notes to yourself?
Todd read them and responded as he - and for that matter I - thought
appropriate. He is the person who has contributed most to this forum, and
(consequently, to some extent) he has as much nonsense to put up with here
as anyone else. Irritated & sharp responses from time to time are fair
enough. It is gratuitous insults, such as Brandon's habitual bile, that are
unfair and a result of ulterior motives in coming to this newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Avilia (d)William Lancaster
Yet more self pity from Brandon - who evidently includes himself amongst his
"presumably" weaker targets.
No, I think I can stick up for myself well enough (although you
evidently *fancy* you've gotten the best of me much of the time).
I think you are here (assuming you are an "actual" person as
opposed to a ghost writer used to cheerlead in subtle ways for your
real identity)
What _can_ this mean, if my supposed "real identity" is camouflaged behind
an assumed one?
It means just what it says. There are certain people of the group you
seem to favor (MAR, for instance). Might you be MAR posting under a
separate name (and understood, under your guise of Peter Stewart, to
have better academic credentials and standing [hence importance] than
MAR)? When "you" support his contentions and double-team with him in
posting against someone (me, for instance), isn't "he" propped up
somewhat by this behavior?
There are several slightly fishy elements in your story, anyway.
First, you are a literary critic and that is why we can find no trace
of any of your publications on medieval genealogy. Second, you reside
in Australia, and that is why no one has ever met you. Ian Fettes was
reported to have met you--but who is Ian Fettes? He could be a
complete invention as well--could he not? Third, you have admitted
your MSN email address, "p_m_stewart" has a bogus middle initial
("m"); mightn't the rest of the name be fake as well? Might not the
whole persona be a fake?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Avilia (d)William Lancaster
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176037799.399539.112240@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
If you need to believe this to get up tomorrow, go ahead. Since you maintain
that I do nothing here but beat up on victims, whom you yourself preceive to
be weaker, and most of the turmoil in the newsgroup lately has been focused
on your abuses of it....
Going from shallow nonsense deeper into....shallow nonsense. Michael
Andrews-Reading and I don't share the same interests, or country of
residence most of the time. He has been travelling in Europe recently while
I have been in Australia. He has been in SGM a much shorter time than I
have. As to academic credentials, I have no doubt that his must be more
substantial than mine.
You can find no trace of my publicatons on medieval genealogy because there
aren't any - what can coneivably be "fishy" about that?
How Brandoncentric do you think the world is? Many people have met me, not
only in Australia.
No, he is known to several partipants here, a person whose skills in
computing (where I am an extreme dummy) and more general contributions to
this newsgroup are beyond question.
The whole address is bogus, a convenience to avoid spam and other
unsolicited email off-list.
Like "Mr Giffard", you mean?
The contents of posts appearing here over the name "Peter Stewart" are all
that readers can have any valid cause to be interested in (or not). In your
last bout of pointless fixation on my identity you discovered that I have
published literary criticism under the same name. So what? Obviously my days
are not fully taken up by SGM and like everyone else here I am bound to do
other things.
Someone has to write what is posted over my signature, and the sole value of
a name attached is to connect one individual to a number & variety of posts,
so that there is a kind of familiarity in discussions - as well as for
lurkers, who may wish to read or avoid my messages. Whether a person happens
to be acquainted with others here makes not a jot of difference to the truth
or falsehood of whatever they have to say.
Peter Stewart
news:1176037799.399539.112240@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Yet more self pity from Brandon - who evidently includes himself amongst
his
"presumably" weaker targets.
No, I think I can stick up for myself well enough (although you
evidently *fancy* you've gotten the best of me much of the time).
If you need to believe this to get up tomorrow, go ahead. Since you maintain
that I do nothing here but beat up on victims, whom you yourself preceive to
be weaker, and most of the turmoil in the newsgroup lately has been focused
on your abuses of it....
I think you are here (assuming you are an "actual" person as
opposed to a ghost writer used to cheerlead in subtle ways for your
real identity)
What _can_ this mean, if my supposed "real identity" is camouflaged
behind
an assumed one?
It means just what it says. There are certain people of the group you
seem to favor (MAR, for instance). Might you be MAR posting under a
separate name (and understood, under your guise of Peter Stewart, to
have better academic credentials and standing [hence importance] than
MAR)? When "you" support his contentions and double-team with him in
posting against someone (me, for instance), isn't "he" propped up
somewhat by this behavior?
Going from shallow nonsense deeper into....shallow nonsense. Michael
Andrews-Reading and I don't share the same interests, or country of
residence most of the time. He has been travelling in Europe recently while
I have been in Australia. He has been in SGM a much shorter time than I
have. As to academic credentials, I have no doubt that his must be more
substantial than mine.
There are several slightly fishy elements in your story, anyway.
First, you are a literary critic and that is why we can find no trace
of any of your publications on medieval genealogy.
You can find no trace of my publicatons on medieval genealogy because there
aren't any - what can coneivably be "fishy" about that?
Second, you reside
in Australia, and that is why no one has ever met you.
How Brandoncentric do you think the world is? Many people have met me, not
only in Australia.
Ian Fettes was
reported to have met you--but who is Ian Fettes? He could be a
complete invention as well--could he not?
No, he is known to several partipants here, a person whose skills in
computing (where I am an extreme dummy) and more general contributions to
this newsgroup are beyond question.
Third, you have admitted
your MSN email address, "p_m_stewart" has a bogus middle initial
("m");
The whole address is bogus, a convenience to avoid spam and other
unsolicited email off-list.
mightn't the rest of the name be fake as well? Might not the
whole persona be a fake?
Like "Mr Giffard", you mean?
The contents of posts appearing here over the name "Peter Stewart" are all
that readers can have any valid cause to be interested in (or not). In your
last bout of pointless fixation on my identity you discovered that I have
published literary criticism under the same name. So what? Obviously my days
are not fully taken up by SGM and like everyone else here I am bound to do
other things.
Someone has to write what is posted over my signature, and the sole value of
a name attached is to connect one individual to a number & variety of posts,
so that there is a kind of familiarity in discussions - as well as for
lurkers, who may wish to read or avoid my messages. Whether a person happens
to be acquainted with others here makes not a jot of difference to the truth
or falsehood of whatever they have to say.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Avilia (d)William Lancaster
Sublimely touchy, my dear ...
On Apr 8, 9:49 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Apr 8, 9:49 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176037799.399539.112240@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Yet more self pity from Brandon - who evidently includes himself amongst
his
"presumably" weaker targets.
No, I think I can stick up for myself well enough (although you
evidently *fancy* you've gotten the best of me much of the time).
If you need to believe this to get up tomorrow, go ahead. Since you maintain
that I do nothing here but beat up on victims, whom you yourself preceive to
be weaker, and most of the turmoil in the newsgroup lately has been focused
on your abuses of it....
I think you are here (assuming you are an "actual" person as
opposed to a ghost writer used to cheerlead in subtle ways for your
real identity)
What _can_ this mean, if my supposed "real identity" is camouflaged
behind
an assumed one?
It means just what it says. There are certain people of the group you
seem to favor (MAR, for instance). Might you be MAR posting under a
separate name (and understood, under your guise of Peter Stewart, to
have better academic credentials and standing [hence importance] than
MAR)? When "you" support his contentions and double-team with him in
posting against someone (me, for instance), isn't "he" propped up
somewhat by this behavior?
Going from shallow nonsense deeper into....shallow nonsense. Michael
Andrews-Reading and I don't share the same interests, or country of
residence most of the time. He has been travelling in Europe recently while
I have been in Australia. He has been in SGM a much shorter time than I
have. As to academic credentials, I have no doubt that his must be more
substantial than mine.
There are several slightly fishy elements in your story, anyway.
First, you are a literary critic and that is why we can find no trace
of any of your publications on medieval genealogy.
You can find no trace of my publicatons on medieval genealogy because there
aren't any - what can coneivably be "fishy" about that?
Second, you reside
in Australia, and that is why no one has ever met you.
How Brandoncentric do you think the world is? Many people have met me, not
only in Australia.
Ian Fettes was
reported to have met you--but who is Ian Fettes? He could be a
complete invention as well--could he not?
No, he is known to several partipants here, a person whose skills in
computing (where I am an extreme dummy) and more general contributions to
this newsgroup are beyond question.
Third, you have admitted
your MSN email address, "p_m_stewart" has a bogus middle initial
("m");
The whole address is bogus, a convenience to avoid spam and other
unsolicited email off-list.
mightn't the rest of the name be fake as well? Might not the
whole persona be a fake?
Like "Mr Giffard", you mean?
The contents of posts appearing here over the name "Peter Stewart" are all
that readers can have any valid cause to be interested in (or not). In your
last bout of pointless fixation on my identity you discovered that I have
published literary criticism under the same name. So what? Obviously my days
are not fully taken up by SGM and like everyone else here I am bound to do
other things.
Someone has to write what is posted over my signature, and the sole value of
a name attached is to connect one individual to a number & variety of posts,
so that there is a kind of familiarity in discussions - as well as for
lurkers, who may wish to read or avoid my messages. Whether a person happens
to be acquainted with others here makes not a jot of difference to the truth
or falsehood of whatever they have to say.
Peter Stewart