Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Supplem

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Jeffery A. Duvall

Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Supplem

Legg inn av Jeffery A. Duvall » 14 mai 2007 23:09:31

Okay. Michael Gater would appear to be the father of Judith Gater (known to
be the daughter of Michael and Isabel/Elizabeth Bailey Gater), wife of John
Perkins (1583-1654), of Hillmorton, Warwickshire, who settled in Ipswich,
MA. Aside from that, I'm not sure what this really tells us, but at least I
finally see a familiar name. Thanks?

Jeff Duvall

<johnb@gwm.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:1179176301.024204.16180@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Snip
p. 42
--John and Thomas Bromwich
--Michael Gater
--Detention of bond and forfeiture of property of plaintiff [1591;
Warwick]

Another big snip...
p. 132
--Richard Beridge of Kibworth Harcourt, Leics., husbandman and
Elizabeth his wife
--Michael Gater of Hilmorton, Warw., yeoman
--Refusal to pay to second plaintiff legacy under will of her father
[1594; Leics., Warwick]

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 00:17:40

Ha ha, funny. "At least I finally see a familiar name." You're not
too up on your New England lines, are you?

"I only know about a few families and if I don't see something I know,
the rest must be worthless." This is Michael Andrews-Reading's
attitude as well.

Ask Leslie Mahler. He could tell you there was something to each of
those entries.

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2007 04:34:22

On May 14, 4:17 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ha ha, funny. "At least I finally see a familiar name." You're not
too up on your New England lines, are you?

"I only know about a few families and if I don't see something I know,
the rest must be worthless." This is Michael Andrews-Reading's
attitude as well.

Ask Leslie Mahler. He could tell you there was something to each of
those entries.


If you really believe the lawsuits are helpful,
you should hire someone to look at them.

It only costs about $20 for each one.

Leslie

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2007 07:54:28

On 15 Mai, 00:17, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ha ha, funny. "At least I finally see a familiar name." You're not
too up on your New England lines, are you?

"I only know about a few families and if I don't see something I know,
the rest must be worthless." This is Michael Andrews-Reading's
attitude as well.

No, it is not. It is your inferiority complex (a well merited one)
that continually interprets things this way.

My attitude is that posts to a public news-group should, in addition
to being on-topic, be for public utility. Failing to explain them or
put them in context renders them inaccessible and thus pointless.

You may think that long lists without any context are useful for the
"initiated" - ie researchers into New England genealogy - but this is
incorrect. You merely ensure that your "work" is ignored (an outcome
assisted considerably by your overwhelming need for attention through
negativity and personal abuse). Very sad.

Cheers, Michael

PS Nice to see you post something on topic for a change (Hawes of
Solihull); it's a shame that those of us who could answer your
question are unlikely to be motivated to do so, but you've no-one to
blame but yourself for that.

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 15:34:09

If you really believe the lawsuits are helpful,
you should hire someone to look at them.

Of course they're helpful, Leslie! Aren't they? I mean, if only to
establish biographical details on these lines (a richness of detail
that has been proven desirable by the Great Migration Study project).

It only costs about $20 for each one.

I guess I'll leave that to the descendants of the individuals
mentioned.

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 15:38:52

PS Nice to see you post something on topic for a change (Hawes of
Solihull); it's a shame that those of us who could answer your
question are unlikely to be motivated to do so, but you've no-one to
blame but yourself for that.

Where have we seen this before? "The tired old queens who run
genealogy are displeased and have been gossiping heavily about you in
their emails; no one will help you and you'll never get published
again, for you haven't sucked up in precisely the right way. You will
be forever ignored."

And these same old queens wonder why genealogy isn't respected as an
academic discipline ...

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2007 16:01:21

On 15 Mai, 15:38, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
PS Nice to see you post something on topic for a change (Hawes of
Solihull); it's a shame that those of us who could answer your
question are unlikely to be motivated to do so, but you've no-one to
blame but yourself for that.

Where have we seen this before? "The tired old queens who run
genealogy are displeased and have been gossiping heavily about you in
their emails; no one will help you and you'll never get published
again, for you haven't sucked up in precisely the right way. You will
be forever ignored."

Nope, not what I said at all; read it again. Your contorted
projections are curious, and rather disturbing, but essentially they
say more about you and your own self-view than they do about reality.

And these same old queens wonder why genealogy isn't respected as an
academic discipline ...

Genealogy as an academic discipline is respected; you are not. It's
up to you to lift your game if you are unhappy about that. What a
sad, pathetic joke you are.

Leslie's advice, by the way, seems very sensible: if, as you keep
bleating in your drunker (and thus more honest) moments, you wish to
make your mark in NE genealogical circles, re-typing list indices is
not the way to do it: go that extra step, access the underlying
documents, and present conclusions based on evidence: that's genealogy
(like any other academic discipline). If your librarian's salary
prevents you from spending money on research, take the chip of your
shoulder and stop insulting those regulars here who would otherwise
help you with this [probably too late in most cases]. The only thing
that's holding you back are your own limitations.

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 16:06:58

Genealogy as an academic discipline is respected; you are not. It's
up to you to lift your game if you are unhappy about that. What a
sad, pathetic joke you are.

And what a caricature of an adequate human being you are ... =)

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 19:59:14

If you really believe the lawsuits are helpful,
you should hire someone to look at them.

It only costs about $20 for each one.

Leslie

Leslie, it bothers me you won't say a few more positive things for me
in this context. You, and probably quite a few other American
readers, are aware that each of those items concerns an immigrant
family, quite a few of them from gentry families. We can go through
the list right now ...

p. 13
--Richard Atlee of East Dereham, Norf., linendraper
--Christopher Barrett
--Threat of common law suit by defendant against plaintiff on bond for
debt [1588; Norfolk]

Christopher Barrett was the father of Margaret (Barrett) Huntington of
Connecticut; these Barretts had a descent from the medieval family of
Love of Westhall, Suffolk. That, plus the date of 1588, makes it on-
topic.

p. 15
--Ralph Astbrooke of Ipswich, Suff., merchant [factor of defendant]
--John Knappe of Ipswich, merchant
--Debt following arbitration [1590; Suffolk]

John Knapp was the father of Judith Knapp, wife of William Hubbard of
New England. These Knapps had a medieval line and a descent from
royalty (i.e., on-topic).

p. 42
--John and Thomas Bromwich
--Michael Gater
--Detention of bond and forfeiture of property of plaintiff [1591;
Warwick]

Michael Gater was a connection of the Perkinses of Hillmorton who came
to New England.

--Thomas Bromley of London, merchant
--Henry Anderson and Katherine Garraway, widow, his mother
--Detention of bond of deceased son-in-law of plaintiff [1598;
London]

Katherine Garraway was ancestress of Mr. Christopher Taylor of Lynn
and Boston, who has a royal line through this Garraway family.

p. 45
--Maurice Blunt, Richard Hill and Thomas Graye of London,
clothworkers, William Smyth and Roger Powell of London, linendrapers,
James Parrott of London, mercer, Edward Draper and Christopher
Robinson of London, girdlers
--Hamon Pickeringe, Leon[?ard] Hollingworth and Edward Shuttleworth
--Debts claimed from estate of third party against defendants as
executor and overseers [1601; Lincs., London]

I think this Edward Draper, girdler, was probably the father of Susan
Draper, wife of Ralph Fogge of New England.

p. 67
--Jane Batt
--Esdras Reade and 'Bersabee' [? Bathsheba] his wife
--Suit against plaintiff in King's Bench for debt [1596]

There was an Esdras Reade (note the very _unusual_ name) at Boston,
Mass., in the next century.

p. 68
--William Buckenham of Diss, Norf., yeoman
--Faith Sherman, widow
--Common law suits against plaintiff for debt [1587; Norfolk,
Suffolk]

Some connection of the Shermans of New England.

p. 75
--Edward Baskervile of Bickenhill, Warw., gent.
--Laurence Washington, gent.
--Detention of deed concerning lease in Kingsbury, Warw.; nonpayment
of rent [1590; Warwick]

Washington is an ancient, well-connected name; presumably this is some
relation of the Washingtons of Virginia, who had a royal line.

p. 80
--John Birde
--Richard Purefey, Augustine Nicholls and Thomas Morgan, esq.
--Money lent by plaintiff to buy property at Foxton, Northants.;
conspiracy to defraud [1589; Northants.]

Augustine Nicholls and Richard Purefoy (from an ancient family) were
relations of Gov. Thomas Dudley of New England.

p. 83
--William Brewster of Scrooby, Notts., gent [bailiff and receiver for
certain lands of Archbishop Edwin Sandys, deceased]
--Cecily Sandys [widow of Archbishop Sandys]
--Threatened common law suit against plaintiff for alleged negligence
over audits for Archbishop Sandys [1589; Notts.; badly torn]

William Brewster was a passenger on the Mayflower. Was he always
called "gent"?

p. 97
--William Bradstreete of Eye, Suff. and Joan his wife
--Joan Goddarde and Robert Garrarde
--Refusal to deliver bequests to second plaintiff under will of her
father [1589/90; Suffolk]

Probably some relation of Bradstreets in New England.

p. 111
--Thomas Batter of Sutton Poyntz, Dors., yeoman
--Thomas Burley of Osmington, Dors., gent. and Edward Warham of
Dorchester, Dors., gent.
--Lease of farm at Osmington; threatened common law suit against
plaintiff about bond concerned with this [1590; Dorset]

Edward Warham was an ancestor of Rev. John Warham of New England,
whose family, upper yeomanry or minor gentry, has been traced back to
the late 1400s.

p. 121
--Nicholas Browne of Snelston, Derb., esq.
--William Asheton of Haywood, Staffs., 'innholder'
--Detention of bond; nonpayment for horses sold to defendant by
plaintiff [1558-79; Derb., Staffs.]

Nicholas Browne was an ancestor of Nathaniel Browne of CT, and this
line (Brownes) has a royal descent.

p. 132
--Richard Beridge of Kibworth Harcourt, Leics., husbandman and
Elizabeth his wife
--Michael Gater of Hilmorton, Warw., yeoman
--Refusal to pay to second plaintiff legacy under will of her father
[1594; Leics., Warwick]

See above (Gater).

p. 138
--John Bredstrete, junr. of Creeting St. Mary, Suff.
--Thomas Cooke of Little Barningham, Norf.
--Common law suits between father of plaintiff, plaintiff himself and
defendant over forgery of bond [1584; Norfolk, Suffolk]

See above (Bradstreet).

p. 160
--Robert Corderoy of Chute, Wilts., gent.
--John Happgood of Hatherden, Hants., husbandman
--Conditions of lease of property in Hatherden; detention of bond
[1587-91; Hants., Wilts.]

See Paul Reed's article on the royal line of the Virginia Corderoys.

I could do this for each of my lists, and there would be a similar
percentage of gentry/royal connections in each one (since these
families are better known). But who wants to be reduced to spelling
things out explicitly in all instances?

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2007 20:06:59

On 15 Mai, 19:59, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you really believe the lawsuits are helpful,
you should hire someone to look at them.

It only costs about $20 for each one.

Leslie

Leslie, it bothers me you won't say a few more positive things for me
in this context. You, and probably quite a few other American
readers, are aware that each of those items concerns an immigrant
family, quite a few of them from gentry families. We can go through
the list right now ...

(snip of contextualised post)

I could do this for each of my lists, and there would be a similar
percentage of gentry/royal connections in each one (since these
families are better known). But who wants to be reduced to spelling
things out explicitly in all instances?

That's the entire purpose of this list - it's public, not a secret
society for the initiated. Now you've shown that you can do it, I
encourage you to maintain this basic and simple standard.

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 20:08:38

That's the entire purpose of this list - it's public, not a secret
society for the initiated. Now you've shown that you can do it, I
encourage you to maintain this basic and simple standard.

MA-R

I suspect it won't happen.

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2007 20:15:09

On 15 Mai, 20:08, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's the entire purpose of this list - it's public, not a secret
society for the initiated. Now you've shown that you can do it, I
encourage you to maintain this basic and simple standard.

MA-R

I suspect it won't happen.

I am quite sure it won't. And you wonder why someone like Leslie
might hesitate to endorse you in public?

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 20:21:24

I am quite sure it won't. And you wonder why someone like Leslie
might hesitate to endorse you in public?

That doesn't seem like a very good reason not to endorse someone, if
they do truly know what they're talking about (and I do). I think he
is more p.o.ed I blocked his emails. I just got tired of being a
cheerleader and reaping no benefits from it.

And you're still a boring nag, Michael, trying to make life hard for
people.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 mai 2007 20:35:41

Great post, John. Very useful. Keep up the good work.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2007 20:42:41

On 15 Mai, 20:21, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am quite sure it won't. And you wonder why someone like Leslie
might hesitate to endorse you in public?

That doesn't seem like a very good reason not to endorse someone, if
they do truly know what they're talking about (and I do). I think he
is more p.o.ed I blocked his emails. I just got tired of being a
cheerleader and reaping no benefits from it.

Sadly typical of your narcissistic, egocentric universe - Leslie
Mahler doesn't reply to a post on a message board for a few hours
(sic), and you're off into tantrum mode. I don't know Leslie,
although I respect his expertise in his fields of endeavour, but I
doubt he is the one who is losing out if you are no longer in email
contact. You're not a cheerleader: you're a little child screaming
for attention. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that you don't
put the work in because you're not up to it - all your other excuses
seem like sour grapes.

And you're still a boring nag, Michael, trying to make life hard for
people.

John, I am patiently trying to encourage you to put what interest and
(?small) talents you may have in this field to good use. How is that
making life hard for anyone? Other posters here do not find on-topic
contributions, helpfulness and adult behaviour "hard" - just you.
Furthermore, you may find encouragement "boring", but I suspect it's
far less boring to others here than your usual tantrums, posts while
drunk, sexual innuendos etc - they're not irritating or naughty or
funny, just deeply, deeply boring and sad; they make me yawn. I
appreciate that your personality includes a deep need for attention,
and that at times this need is apparently so overwhelming that you
will settle for negative attention, so I try to be positive - not
easy, when you have an infantile delight in insulting and baiting.
Feed your fragile ego with some decent efforts at mediaeval gateway
research. Your post earlier today was clear and useful - let's have
more of that, lots more. Perhaps you will be able to redeem yourself
from trolldom, and reap the benefits of others' assistance again -
depending on how many bridges you can unburn.

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 20:58:07

Sadly typical of your narcissistic, egocentric universe - Leslie
Mahler doesn't reply to a post on a message board for a few hours
(sic), and you're off into tantrum mode. I don't know Leslie,
although I respect his expertise in his fields of endeavour, but I
doubt he is the one who is losing out if you are no longer in email
contact. You're not a cheerleader: you're a little child screaming
for attention. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that you don't
put the work in because you're not up to it - all your other excuses
seem like sour grapes.

Leslie did respond, I just thought he could have been more positive
than a lackadaisical ... "If you really believe the lawsuits are
helpful, you should hire someone to look at them."

John, I am patiently trying to encourage you to put what interest and
(?small) talents you may have in this field to good use. How is that
making life hard for anyone? Other posters here do not find on-topic
contributions, helpfulness and adult behaviour "hard" - just you.
Furthermore, you may find encouragement "boring", but I suspect it's
far less boring to others here than your usual tantrums, posts while
drunk, sexual innuendos etc - they're not irritating or naughty or
funny, just deeply, deeply boring and sad; they make me yawn. I
appreciate that your personality includes a deep need for attention,
and that at times this need is apparently so overwhelming that you
will settle for negative attention, so I try to be positive - not
easy, when you have an infantile delight in insulting and baiting.
Feed your fragile ego with some decent efforts at mediaeval gateway
research. Your post earlier today was clear and useful - let's have
more of that, lots more. Perhaps you will be able to redeem yourself
from trolldom, and reap the benefits of others' assistance again -
depending on how many bridges you can unburn.

What is this, an exercise in how much bullshit can be squeezed into
twenty lines of print?

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 21:02:59

Great post, John. Very useful. Keep up the good work.

Thanks, Doug. Douglas is also aware, like Leslie, that there is some
significance to everything included in those lists from the _Lists/
Indexes_ vols.

Renia

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2007 21:03:12

John Brandon wrote:
Sadly typical of your narcissistic, egocentric universe - Leslie
Mahler doesn't reply to a post on a message board for a few hours
(sic), and you're off into tantrum mode. I don't know Leslie,
although I respect his expertise in his fields of endeavour, but I
doubt he is the one who is losing out if you are no longer in email
contact. You're not a cheerleader: you're a little child screaming
for attention. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that you don't
put the work in because you're not up to it - all your other excuses
seem like sour grapes.


Leslie did respond, I just thought he could have been more positive
than a lackadaisical ... "If you really believe the lawsuits are
helpful, you should hire someone to look at them."

It's not lackadaisical, it's standard genealogical practice. The indexes
you provide are of no real help, because there is no context. They would
be more useful as a downloadable Excel database from your website. Then
people could search for the names they are interested in. Not all the
names on the lists you give might be the people you think they are.
England isn't a single-name country of isolated names. Thousands of
people do and did share the same name. Without looking at the lawsuits
themselves, the indexes you provide are too scant to be of use, unless,
as I said, they were part of a searchable database.

<snipped about 20 lines>

What is this, an exercise in how much bullshit can be squeezed into
twenty lines of print?

Why do you begrudge it when people try to help you?

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 21:10:36

Why do you begrudge it when people try to help you?

I don't call it very good help when it is two back-handed compliments
of a line each sandwiched between eighteen lines of pomposity,
condescension, idle speculation, and rhetorical filler.

Renia

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2007 21:53:57

John Brandon wrote:

Why do you begrudge it when people try to help you?


I don't call it very good help when it is two back-handed compliments
of a line each sandwiched between eighteen lines of pomposity,
condescension, idle speculation, and rhetorical filler.


Well, grin, bear it and say thanks. Not everyone is the same. And we're
all here to help each other.

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 22:03:19

Well, grin, bear it and say thanks. Not everyone is the same. And we're
all here to help each other.

Renia, get a grip on reality, baby. I will never be thanking anyone
for a steaming, 20-line pile of insult. And neither would you, of
course.

It's odd how I thought I was doing so good at curtailing my postings
this month, but actually now I've catapulted ahead of Will Jhonson.

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 mai 2007 23:16:22

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179262999.484396.11430@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Well, grin, bear it and say thanks. Not everyone is the same. And we're
all here to help each other.

Renia, get a grip on reality, baby. I will never be thanking anyone
for a steaming, 20-line pile of insult. And neither would you, of
course.

It's odd how I thought I was doing so good at curtailing my postings
this month, but actually now I've catapulted ahead of Will Jhonson.

There's nothing odd about it to the rest of us - a total lack of
self-awareness is your most obvious, and perhaps least boring, trait. No-one
who understood what was being revealed would go on making such an obnoxious
ass of himself day after day....

First you get in a snitch when Leslie Mahler answers you from his own
perspective, sensibly, instead of providing the affirmation you craved, and
then you presume to tell us that he is "aware" of the very significance you
failed to get him to endorse. If you think you can inform the public of
other people's true, unexpressed opinions by ESP, why ask them for
statements in the first place?

Does it not strike you as highly embarrassing that Richardson, and so far
only Richardson, has spoken up for you?

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2007 23:38:24

First you get in a snitch when Leslie Mahler answers you from his own
perspective, sensibly, instead of providing the affirmation you craved, and
then you presume to tell us that he is "aware" of the very significance you
failed to get him to endorse. If you think you can inform the public of
other people's true, unexpressed opinions by ESP, why ask them for
statements in the first place?

I am positive he was "aware" of the significance of every one of those
items. Many others would be, as well: Martin Hollick, the
tafmeister, DR, Brice Clagett, Nat Taylor, the late Marshall Kirk,
Ginny Wagner, probably Stewart Baldwin ...

And anyway, I didn't ask Leslie for his opinion. He very tepidly and
non-committally gave one, presumably only because he saw his name
mentioned. I can only assume he wasn't a little more positive because
he hasn't received any email responses from me for several months.
Although perhaps he hasn't emailed me anyway. You can never tell/ you
will never know.

Does it not strike you as highly embarrassing that Richardson, and so far
only Richardson, has spoken up for you?

Not at all! Douglas is far from the dum-dum you and your claqueur
(MAR) like to portray and bully folks into accepting. He is
especially brilliant in the 1500-1650 period, IMHO.

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 mai 2007 00:03:37

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179268704.381287.110470@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
First you get in a snitch when Leslie Mahler answers you from his own
perspective, sensibly, instead of providing the affirmation you craved,
and
then you presume to tell us that he is "aware" of the very significance
you
failed to get him to endorse. If you think you can inform the public of
other people's true, unexpressed opinions by ESP, why ask them for
statements in the first place?

I am positive he was "aware" of the significance of every one of those
items. Many others would be, as well: Martin Hollick, the
tafmeister, DR, Brice Clagett, Nat Taylor, the late Marshall Kirk,
Ginny Wagner, probably Stewart Baldwin ...

Not even YOU can be aware of the significance of an index entry until you
have reviewed whatever it indicates - that is ALL an index does. Even
assuming it is always the person you take it to be from mere name-spotting,
the genealogical significance may (often will) turn out to be nil. And any
competent researcher will be following his or her own agenda and timetable,
that will include consulting indices when appropriate rather than hanging on
serendipity from your disconnected and haphazard posts.

And anyway, I didn't ask Leslie for his opinion.

Ho hum. Just a few hours ago you wrote: "Of course they're helpful, Leslie!
Aren't they?" What is that if not asking him for his opinion? Do you not
have the attention span of the gadfly that you emulate in so many other
ways?

He very tepidly and
non-committally gave one, presumably only because he saw his name
mentioned. I can only assume he wasn't a little more positive because
he hasn't received any email responses from me for several months.
Although perhaps he hasn't emailed me anyway. You can never tell/ you
will never know.

You insisted on naming him, three times at least, trying to milk a
favourable response that didn't come, then you turned on him for allegedly
having ulterior motives not to endorse you. This is disgracefully stupid on
your part as well as unfair.

Does it not strike you as highly embarrassing that Richardson, and so far
only Richardson, has spoken up for you?

Not at all! Douglas is far from the dum-dum you and your claqueur
(MAR) like to portray and bully folks into accepting. He is
especially brilliant in the 1500-1650 period, IMHO.

Um, Michael has done nothing of the kind - unlike me he is invariably polite
and even-tempered in response to Richardson's arrogance and folly. To
maintain in the face of all the evidence this newsgroup has seen that
Richardson is no "dum-dum" is only another example of your wishful,
self-interested, illogical thinking. Richardson's lack of method in research
is similar to your own, though he is both more lucky (from putting more time
& effort into it) and more unlucky (from having less natural intelligence to
start with) than you. Neither of you has properly developed whatever
aptitudes you have, because neither of you is genuinely engaged in a
disinterested search for knowledge.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 00:17:50

competent researcher will be following his or her own agenda and
timetable,
that will include consulting indices when appropriate rather than hanging on
serendipity from your disconnected and haphazard posts.

I don't know that that's an accurate statement ... necessarily.

Ho hum. Just a few hours ago you wrote: "Of course they're helpful, Leslie!
Aren't they?" What is that if not asking him for his opinion? Do you not

A rhetorical question to myself. I know Leslie never (or only rarely)
makes more than one posting on a topic. And I knew he had already
said all he was gunna.

You insisted on naming him, three times at least, trying to milk a
favourable response that didn't come, then you turned on him for allegedly
having ulterior motives not to endorse you. This is disgracefully stupid on
your part as well as unfair.

Always on about the "disgraceful" and the "humiliating" ... Hmmm,
makes us wonder. What kind of "disgraceful" things have you done to
"humiliate" yourself? Maybe you've even sought out "disgraceful"
things that deeply "humiliate." Basket case.

Um, Michael has done nothing of the kind - unlike me he is invariably polite
and even-tempered in response to Richardson's arrogance and folly. To

Can't you read??

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2007 00:26:22

On May 15, 12:21 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am quite sure it won't. And you wonder why someone like Leslie
might hesitate to endorse you in public?

That doesn't seem like a very good reason not to endorse someone, if
they do truly know what they're talking about (and I do). I think he
is more p.o.ed I blocked his emails. I just got tired of being a
cheerleader and reaping no benefits from it.


I didnt know you had me blocked.

But the real point is, youve been insulting people on here for
years.
I think youre capable enough of defending yourself .
Or maybe Douglas will help you out.

Leslie

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 00:37:35

But the real point is, youve been insulting people on here for
years.

Well, wow, you didn't seem to mind too much when you emailed me
privately all those times, boasting "I have X article coming out in
the new TAG." And you also seemed to sort of like it when I fibbed
and said, "How interesting! What else are you working on? blah.
blah."

And some people need to be insulted. Didn't Flannery O'Connor say,
"She would have been a good woman if there had been someone there to
shoot her every day of her life"?

Renia

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2007 00:45:36

John Brandon wrote:

But the real point is, youve been insulting people on here for
years.


Well, wow, you didn't seem to mind too much when you emailed me
privately all those times, boasting "I have X article coming out in
the new TAG." And you also seemed to sort of like it when I fibbed
and said, "How interesting! What else are you working on? blah.
blah."

And some people need to be insulted. Didn't Flannery O'Connor say,
"She would have been a good woman if there had been someone there to
shoot her every day of her life"?


Just because you need to be insulted doesn't mean everyone else does.

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 00:47:52

Just because you need to be insulted doesn't mean everyone else does.

Not me, I'm quite fine with being insultor rather than insultee.

Renia

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2007 00:48:43

John Brandon wrote:

Just because you need to be insulted doesn't mean everyone else does.


Not me, I'm quite fine with being insultor rather than insultee.

Why do you feel you must insult?

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 mai 2007 01:20:48

On May 16, 9:17 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Peter Stewart had written:]
[Any] competent researcher will be following his or her own agenda
and timetable, that will include consulting indices when appropriate
rather than hanging on serendipity from your disconnected and
haphazard posts.

I don't know that that's an accurate statement ... necessarily.

Your thoughts about how competent researchers might proceed are not
likely to be persuasive on a mere impression. Why would any competent
researcher trust to your name-spotting? If a name occurred that they
happened to be looking for, that is serendipity - and not dependable.
If not, a competent researcher would hardly fail to consult the same
index in case you had missed something. Research assistance can be
dicey enough when commissioned and specific, much less the more random
kind you are offering.

Ho hum. Just a few hours ago you wrote: "Of course they're helpful,
Leslie! Aren't they?" What is that if not asking him for his opinion?

A rhetorical question to myself. I know Leslie never (or only rarely)
makes more than one posting on a topic. And I knew he had already
said all he was gunna.

Who do you think you are kidding? Exclamation marks are hardly
required when talking to oneself, as anyone short of outright lunacy
will tell you.

You insisted on naming him, three times at least, trying to milk a
favourable response that didn't come, then you turned on him for allegedly
having ulterior motives not to endorse you. This is disgracefully stupid on
your part as well as unfair.

Always on about the "disgraceful" and the "humiliating" ... Hmmm,
makes us wonder. What kind of "disgraceful" things have you done to
"humiliate" yourself? Maybe you've even sought out "disgraceful"
things that deeply "humiliate." Basket case.

Yes indeed, but not me - the word "humiliating" here is your own,
intruded in quotation marks to project this extraneous thought onto
me. It is not the way of civilised discourse to project your fantasies
and opinions onto others, as you do continually in an attempt,
perhaps, to feel validated. But no-one else is fooled.

Um, Michael has done nothing of the kind - unlike me he is invariably polite
and even-tempered in response to Richardson's arrogance and folly. To

Can't you read??

What does this mean? If you think Michael has not been polite and/or
even-tempered to Richardson, a double interrogative is not going to
substantiate this. Most of your impressions are not shared in this
company - exceptionally here, you lack self-awarenss while being self-
centred to a queasy degree, forever like an infant mewling and puking,
as Shakespeare described the first age of man.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 mai 2007 01:27:03

On May 16, 9:26 am, lmah...@att.net wrote:
On May 15, 12:21 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am quite sure it won't. And you wonder why someone like Leslie
might hesitate to endorse you in public?

That doesn't seem like a very good reason not to endorse someone, if
they do truly know what they're talking about (and I do). I think he
is more p.o.ed I blocked his emails. I just got tired of being a
cheerleader and reaping no benefits from it.

I didnt know you had me blocked.

But the real point is, youve been insulting people on here for
years.
I think youre capable enough of defending yourself .
Or maybe Douglas will help you out.

Leslie

Well said.

I make no claim to speak for anyone else, unlike Brandon, but I
imagine Leslie might not be entirely displeased to have it known by
the newsgroup that he no longer (if he once did) cares to communicate
privately with such a reprobate.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2007 08:46:36

On 15 Mai, 23:38, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Does it not strike you as highly embarrassing that Richardson, and so far
only Richardson, has spoken up for you?

Not at all! Douglas is far from the dum-dum you and your claqueur
(MAR) like to portray and bully folks into accepting. He is
especially brilliant in the 1500-1650 period, IMHO.

Two days ago you admitted you did not know what the word "claqueur"
meant, and it had to be explained to you [no dictionaries in your
library, apparently]. It seems you still haven't got it. Unlike the
uncriticial and somewhat embarrassing Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee
performance that you and (regretably) Douglas insist on putting on
("Great post!" "Thanks, you are the best!" etc), I don't pat Peter
Stewart's back and I have criticised him where I have thought it
appropriate. I understand why Douglas feels a need to stick with you
- he no doubt enjoys the unqualified support that no other party is
likely to give, and he possibly thinks you might uncover some
meaningful New England gateway that will help him with the next
revision of PA and be useful to the market. It's a shame he appears
to think these considerations outweigh the negative effect of people
questioning his judgment and morality, but that's his call.

As for your assertion that I am rude to Douglas, I refute it. I have
much more respect for Douglas than I do for you, and I enjoy and
appreciate many of his posts. He can be thoughtful, innovative and
helpful - not qualities you share, of course. There are times,
however, when Douglas's conjectures do not turn out to be sustainable
- probably inevitable with blue-sky thinking - and there are times
when I have occasion to disagree with his views. Unfortunately, he
has a bad habit of ignoring facts or arguments that do not fit in with
his theories; his silliness about CP recently has been embarrassing
and hypocritical, and his follow up recently has been very poor, but
it would be far more revealing of your inability to grasp reality if
you construed discussing these situations on a discussion-board as
rudeness. I hope Douglas will continue to share his knowledge with
the group, and look forward to discussing further theories and
findings with him in an adult manner.

You, on the other hand, Mr "I can give it but I can't take it",
wouldn't be missed at all. Why not take a long holiday?

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 12:55:07

I make no claim to speak for anyone else, unlike Brandon, but I
imagine Leslie might not be entirely displeased to have it known by
the newsgroup that he no longer (if he once did) cares to communicate
privately with such a reprobate.

Peter Stewart

He got a number of good benefits out of it, I think (being able to
boast a little to someone presumably interested about articles of his
coming out). On the other hand, even though he had personally
inspected the St. Katherine-by-Tower parish register on microfilm in
Salt Lake City, I wasn't allowed to know the exact wording of the
Gifford-Temple marriage record, because he was going to write it up in
a note to be published, along with some other marriages. Two years
later, I mildly ask about this and find out he's no longer doing it!

Once I asked for a copy of a short article from TAG--but no, that was
too much trouble.

So it was all very one-sided.

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 mai 2007 13:10:10

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179316507.886947.190990@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I make no claim to speak for anyone else, unlike Brandon, but I
imagine Leslie might not be entirely displeased to have it known by
the newsgroup that he no longer (if he once did) cares to communicate
privately with such a reprobate.

Peter Stewart

He got a number of good benefits out of it, I think (being able to
boast a little to someone presumably interested about articles of his
coming out). On the other hand, even though he had personally
inspected the St. Katherine-by-Tower parish register on microfilm in
Salt Lake City, I wasn't allowed to know the exact wording of the
Gifford-Temple marriage record, because he was going to write it up in
a note to be published, along with some other marriages. Two years
later, I mildly ask about this and find out he's no longer doing it!

Once I asked for a copy of a short article from TAG--but no, that was
too much trouble.

So it was all very one-sided.

Apparently so, the dark side - you feigned interest in his work in an
attempt to get something out of him for yourself in return.

Plenty of people are interested in Leslie Mahler's work, that's why it gets
published in TAG. No-one here is fooled into believing that he needs to
"boast" about this to an undistinguished researcher who doesn't get similar
attention, much less respect, and who won't even obtain his own copies of
the journal.

He is well shot of you.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2007 13:28:51

On May 16, 12:55 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

He got a number of good benefits out of it, I think (being able to
boast a little to someone presumably interested about articles of his
coming out). On the other hand, even though he had personally
inspected the St. Katherine-by-Tower parish register on microfilm in
Salt Lake City, I wasn't allowed to know the exact wording of the
Gifford-Temple marriage record, because he was going to write it up in
a note to be published, along with some other marriages.

Maybe he felt sorry for you and believed you when you "pretended" to
be interested. There's nothing unusual in retaining research results
pending possible publication - standard professional practice. And
you work in a library - why can't you find journal articles yourself?

While I was extracting the late 16th century records from All Hallows
Barking, I also transcribed this particular entry of 1650, from the
register-copies at the Guildhall Library, along with other
contemporaneous Giffords from a third neighbouring parish. It's not
hard.

Why don't you ask Douglas to extract them for you - he's at SLC much
of the time, and appears keen to support you.

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 13:43:56

Apparently so, the dark side - you feigned interest in his work in an
attempt to get something out of him for yourself in return.

Plenty of people are interested in Leslie Mahler's work, that's why it gets
published in TAG. No-one here is fooled into believing that he needs to
"boast" about this to an undistinguished researcher who doesn't get similar
attention, much less respect, and who won't even obtain his own copies of
the journal.

He is well shot of you.

It's very stupid to have such confident opinions on this topic (where
you know so little of what actually went on).

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 mai 2007 14:05:13

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179319436.369684.163180@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Apparently so, the dark side - you feigned interest in his work in an
attempt to get something out of him for yourself in return.

Plenty of people are interested in Leslie Mahler's work, that's why it
gets
published in TAG. No-one here is fooled into believing that he needs to
"boast" about this to an undistinguished researcher who doesn't get
similar
attention, much less respect, and who won't even obtain his own copies of
the journal.

He is well shot of you.

It's very stupid to have such confident opinions on this topic (where
you know so little of what actually went on).

Opinions my foot - I haven't supposed anything beyond what you told us: for
a time Leslie Mahler informed about his work ahead of publication, you
pretended to be interested in this, and then you asked him for favours that
he was not suckered into providing as you wished.

Have you forgotten all this already? Do I have to quote your own posts back
to you yet again, only to have you trump up more disingenuous - indeed
whoppingly deluded - excuses?

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 14:54:53

Opinions my foot - I haven't supposed anything beyond what you told us: for
a time Leslie Mahler informed about his work ahead of publication, you
pretended to be interested in this, and then you asked him for favours that
he was not suckered into providing as you wished.

Have you forgotten all this already? Do I have to quote your own posts back
to you yet again, only to have you trump up more disingenuous - indeed
whoppingly deluded - excuses?

Peter Stewart

Too, too stupid. Digging around for more information. *I'm* not
going to be sucked into _that_.

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 14:57:14

Why do you feel you must insult?

Why do you feel you must ask pert and pointed questions? (And no,
there's no covert reference to _any_ segment of your anatomy.)

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2007 15:00:59

On May 16, 4:55 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I make no claim to speak for anyone else, unlike Brandon, but I
imagine Leslie might not be entirely displeased to have it known by
the newsgroup that he no longer (if he once did) cares to communicate
privately with such a reprobate.

Peter Stewart

He got a number of good benefits out of it, I think (being able to
boast a little to someone presumably interested about articles of his
coming out). On the other hand, even though he had personally
inspected the St. Katherine-by-Tower parish register on microfilm in
Salt Lake City, I wasn't allowed to know the exact wording of the
Gifford-Temple marriage record, because he was going to write it up in
a note to be published, along with some other marriages. Two years
later, I mildly ask about this and find out he's no longer doing it!

Once I asked for a copy of a short article from TAG--but no, that was
too much trouble.

So it was all very one-sided.



I told you a long time ago that the parish register, as typical, said
nearly NOTHING about the Gifford / Temple marriage.
Only names & a date.
If you want to, go ahead & publish the details, I dont care.

Wasnt it a few months ago that you were whining to Paul Reed?
You paid him to search about this Gifford line youre obsessed with
& he wasnt able to find anything.

I think you wanted a copy of an article about Alice Freeman Thompson
of Preston Capes, co. Northampton.
Didnt you find some scrap, a second marriage for one of her ancestors?
Of course, you werent going to publish anything on it.
You havent done that in about 7 years.

Leslie

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 15:09:48

I told you a long time ago that the parish register, as typical, said
nearly NOTHING about the Gifford / Temple marriage.
Only names & a date.
If you want to, go ahead & publish the details, I dont care.

Wasnt it a few months ago that you were whining to Paul Reed?
You paid him to search about this Gifford line youre obsessed with
& he wasnt able to find anything.

I think you wanted a copy of an article about Alice Freeman Thompson
of Preston Capes, co. Northampton.
Didnt you find some scrap, a second marriage for one of her ancestors?
Of course, you werent going to publish anything on it.
You havent done that in about 7 years.

Touché, touchy.

You couldn't even get my place of residence right in two of your
articles. In one of them you mentioned "John Brandon of Charlestowne,
South Carolina," in the other, "John Brandon of Charlestown, South
Carolina." I'm in Columbia, of course ("one of those darn C
places"). Not to mention that CHARLESTON hasn't been called
Charlestowne/Charlestown since the 1700s, at least.

Not that this is a big or glaring error, just funny to me.

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 15:12:59

Of course, you werent going to publish anything on it.
You havent done that in about 7 years.

So, only people who currently publish are owed anything at all?

I guess you've calculated pretty well, having just been made FASG.

Now you're one of the "tired old queens who run genealogy." Knock
yourself out.

Renia

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2007 15:17:12

John Brandon wrote:

Why do you feel you must insult?


Why do you feel you must ask pert and pointed questions? (And no,
there's no covert reference to _any_ segment of your anatomy.)

Because you don't seem to understand what is being said to you. And you
don't seem to understand that people are actually trying to help you.

Gjest

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2007 15:46:43

On May 16, 3:12 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of course, you werent going to publish anything on it.
You havent done that in about 7 years.

So, only people who currently publish are owed anything at all?

I guess you've calculated pretty well, having just been made FASG.

Now you're one of the "tired old queens who run genealogy." Knock
yourself out.

Any chance of a little less libel, and a little more mediaeval
genealogy - or if not, at least silence? Insulting Leslie with your
own projected inadequacies and self-invented "quotations" ill-becomes
even you.

You do realise, don't you, that the material you publish here is on
open view to the world, and that you can be judged by it? I am
ashamed for you.

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 16:35:50

You do realise, don't you, that the material you publish here is on
open view to the world, and that you can be judged by it? I am
ashamed for you.

Now, if only I can make you so ashamed you leave me alone entirely ...

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2007 16:45:55

Because you don't seem to understand what is being said to you. And you
don't seem to understand that people are actually trying to help you.

Oh, ... you know, you are so right! I'm finally understanding!
Thank you!

Renia

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2007 17:12:13

John Brandon wrote:
Because you don't seem to understand what is being said to you. And you
don't seem to understand that people are actually trying to help you.


Oh, ... you know, you are so right! I'm finally understanding!
Thank you!

Well done! Welcome to the club! :-)

Douglas Richardson

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 mai 2007 18:23:56

I very much appreciate John Brandon's useful posts on the American
colonists and their antecedents. His keen eye for detail is most
extraordinary. I consider him a most valuable genealogist.

As I've stated in the past, I believe the newsgroup is for making
friends and sharing information. When we cooperate, share
information, and act in a friendly manner towards each other, the
cause of genealogy is advanced. When we fight and bicker, it is not.
Having said that, I believe we can do without the many snide remarks
on both sides which have peppered this thread and others of John's in
recent time.

We don't have to always be in agreement with one another, but we do
have to get along.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Sup

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 mai 2007 23:20:16

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1179336235.956792.50880@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I very much appreciate John Brandon's useful posts on the American
colonists and their antecedents. His keen eye for detail is most
extraordinary. I consider him a most valuable genealogist.

As I've stated in the past, I believe the newsgroup is for making
friends and sharing information. When we cooperate, share
information, and act in a friendly manner towards each other, the
cause of genealogy is advanced. When we fight and bicker, it is not.
Having said that, I believe we can do without the many snide remarks
on both sides which have peppered this thread and others of John's in
recent time.

We don't have to always be in agreement with one another, but we do
have to get along.

We do not "have to get along" at all, we are just participating in the same
forum and can quite properly despise - or ignore - each other instead of
showing false respect.

Brandon is fay beyond the pale of decency in his attacks on others. "Snide"
may accurately describe many of his remarks, but not the responses to these.

Some people are willing to turn a blind eye to such vile behaviour, and one
person here is actually ready to give smarmy support to the offender, but
some of us maintain different standards in every aspect of relating to the
world, to friends and strangers alike.

The attitude "I am here to make friends but I will shrug and say nothing, in
defense or in recrimination, when these friends are undeservedly attacked"
is morally incomprehensible to me, even more than imposing on the public by
falsely proclaiming knowledge and professional skills in order to sell books
and bolster a sham reputation. Apparently these go together.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»