Fw: Crispin van de Passe (1564-1637) -- Leo's Coveted Relati

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Crispin van de Passe (1564-1637) -- Leo's Coveted Relati

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 16 aug 2007 05:54:27

Victoria is not your wife, that is Kuniko. Don't tell me you are talking to
Victoria RI ?

Try to get some training in _basic_ reading then you can understand the
difference in the meaning of the words _relative_ and _ancestor_. Yes, there
is a difference, really, you'd better double check with Victoria RI, she can
tell you.

When do you go for the fitting of your straight jacket? Should be becoming.
You are really in need of one, it would keep your hands of the keyboard and
everybody would be much happier..


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Crispin van de Passe (1564-1637) -- Leo's Coveted Relative?


"Crispin de Passe (1564-1637), whose forename is also variously given as
Crispijn, Crispiaen and Chrispyn, or Latinised as Crispinus or Crispianus,
and whose surname as van de Passe..."

http://www.spamula.net/blog/2007/05/cri ... passe.html

Hilarious!

Leo is itching to claim Crispijn van de Passe as an ancestor.

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

--------------Cordon Sanitaire-----------------------------------

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.616.1187237318.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Am I itching to claim a relative (no not ancestor), [sic] well that would
be Crispijn van de Pas, but that is a different story.

And:

From: "Leo van de Pas" < leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Subject: Re: [OT] Raquel Welch Re: Genealogics Updated
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:34:28 +1100
References: 775DE820.5CCFFF8A.007FA2F6@aol.com

I think the observation by WJhonson was petty and a waste of everybodys
[sic] time, if he disagreed he could have sent it to me----if he had, I
would have explained why I made that remark. He was ignoring the rest of
the
sentence, which was an explanation as to how you can search amongst the
portraits, something not very clearly explained on that page of the
website.

I chose Raquel Welch, I could as easily have suggested the year 1533 where
a
famous portrait of Queen Elizabeth I has been added, a portrait made by
Crispijn van de Passe.


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»