Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Christopher Ingham
Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Last week (Aug. 12-18) D. Spencer Hines posted ninety-seven messages
to this forum, very little of which actually addressed medieval
genealogical subject matter. He seems to be a sort of opportunistic
internet shark, merrily attacking others and spreading his particular
brand of anarchy, abetted by the likes of John Brandon, Adrian
Whitaker, and the the clueless Dolores C. Phifer.
Is there a format for threads to be read with Hines' messages
automatically deleted?
Christopher Ingham
to this forum, very little of which actually addressed medieval
genealogical subject matter. He seems to be a sort of opportunistic
internet shark, merrily attacking others and spreading his particular
brand of anarchy, abetted by the likes of John Brandon, Adrian
Whitaker, and the the clueless Dolores C. Phifer.
Is there a format for threads to be read with Hines' messages
automatically deleted?
Christopher Ingham
-
nobody
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
If you use Thunderbird as your news reader you can set it up to
delete all messages from selected e-mail addresses.
Christopher Ingham wrote:
delete all messages from selected e-mail addresses.
Christopher Ingham wrote:
Last week (Aug. 12-18) D. Spencer Hines posted ninety-seven messages
to this forum, very little of which actually addressed medieval
genealogical subject matter. He seems to be a sort of opportunistic
internet shark, merrily attacking others and spreading his particular
brand of anarchy, abetted by the likes of John Brandon, Adrian
Whitaker, and the the clueless Dolores C. Phifer.
Is there a format for threads to be read with Hines' messages
automatically deleted?
Christopher Ingham
-
John Brandon
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
genealogical subject matter. He seems to be a sort of opportunistic
internet shark, merrily attacking others and spreading his particular
brand of anarchy, abetted by the likes of John Brandon, Adrian
Whitaker, and the the clueless Dolores C. Phifer.
Once again the opinion of someone who has made nine postings in all.
Probably some relative of Tony, I'm guessing. Odd how the relations
have to be trotted out to put in their two cents sticking up for dear
old pop and momz.
-
Gjest
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On 20 Aug., 17:26, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, you're thinking of the Richardsons. Careful - you're supposed to
like them, remember?
In any case, sensible people here will measure the valaue of posters'
contributions by their quality, not their quantity. That's one of the
many criteria that you fail on, sadly.
Do you have any mediaeval genealogy to contribute here for a change,
by the way?
Kind regards, Michael
genealogical subject matter. He seems to be a sort of opportunistic
internet shark, merrily attacking others and spreading his particular
brand of anarchy, abetted by the likes of John Brandon, Adrian
Whitaker, and the the clueless Dolores C. Phifer.
Once again the opinion of someone who has made nine postings in all.
Probably some relative of Tony, I'm guessing. Odd how the relations
have to be trotted out to put in their two cents sticking up for dear
old pop and momz.
No, you're thinking of the Richardsons. Careful - you're supposed to
like them, remember?
In any case, sensible people here will measure the valaue of posters'
contributions by their quality, not their quantity. That's one of the
many criteria that you fail on, sadly.
Do you have any mediaeval genealogy to contribute here for a change,
by the way?
Kind regards, Michael
-
John Brandon
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Do you have any mediaeval genealogy to contribute here for a change,
by the way?
Kind regards, Michael
No, but I'm very puzzled by the meaning of your previous paragraph ...
No, you're thinking of the Richardsons. Careful - you're supposed to
like them, remember?
What does it even mean?
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 20, 12:26 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I apologize for being a new member of this newsgroup and for having
posted only nine messages. My sincere apologies also for having had
the effrontery to air a complaint concerning the rife infestation
lately on this website, according to my perception, of irrelevant
psychic flak, aggressively introduced and nurtured for the most part
by D. Spencer Hines. You and the the multifaceted Italian duke came
to mind as having regularly followed fast in the wake of some of
Hines' verbal assaults on various individuals. It was a cheap shot on
my part to have included the hapless Dolores in the discussion. (I
truthfully didn't expect her to read the thread; but she did, and
promptly dispatched a chastising e-mail to me.)
You may actually be a decent fellow in real life, but your web persona
reveals a somewhat nasty disposition. Possibly you could disabuse
some of us of that notion by undertaking, say, to broker a
rapprochement between Peter Stewart and D. Spencer Hines, or between
Leo van de Pas and Douglas Richardson, or between Hines and the
general membership, or between....
And, no, I am not related to anyone in this newsgroup, AFAIK.
Cordially,
Christopher Ingham
genealogical subject matter. He seems to be a sort of opportunistic
internet shark, merrily attacking others and spreading his particular
brand of anarchy, abetted by the likes of John Brandon, Adrian
Whitaker, and the the clueless Dolores C. Phifer.
Once again the opinion of someone who has made nine postings in all.
Probably some relative of Tony, I'm guessing. Odd how the relations
have to be trotted out to put in their two cents sticking up for dear
old pop and momz.
I apologize for being a new member of this newsgroup and for having
posted only nine messages. My sincere apologies also for having had
the effrontery to air a complaint concerning the rife infestation
lately on this website, according to my perception, of irrelevant
psychic flak, aggressively introduced and nurtured for the most part
by D. Spencer Hines. You and the the multifaceted Italian duke came
to mind as having regularly followed fast in the wake of some of
Hines' verbal assaults on various individuals. It was a cheap shot on
my part to have included the hapless Dolores in the discussion. (I
truthfully didn't expect her to read the thread; but she did, and
promptly dispatched a chastising e-mail to me.)
You may actually be a decent fellow in real life, but your web persona
reveals a somewhat nasty disposition. Possibly you could disabuse
some of us of that notion by undertaking, say, to broker a
rapprochement between Peter Stewart and D. Spencer Hines, or between
Leo van de Pas and Douglas Richardson, or between Hines and the
general membership, or between....
And, no, I am not related to anyone in this newsgroup, AFAIK.
Cordially,
Christopher Ingham
-
John Brandon
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
You may actually be a decent fellow in real life, but your web persona
reveals a somewhat nasty disposition. Possibly you could disabuse
Well, whatever. Your web persona reveals ... next to nothing ...
because you have only posted 10 things in your life. But you do have
some nerve lecturing people who have been here for years.
some of us of that notion by undertaking, say, to broker a
rapprochement between Peter Stewart and D. Spencer Hines, or between
Leo van de Pas and Douglas Richardson, or between Hines and the
general membership, or between....
Why would I bother about that? Certain people will always dislike
certain other people; I can't do anything about it.
-
Gjest
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 21, 6:59 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you are about 15 years old, "dislike" might be relevant. But
postings in a newsgroup should be a bit more mature than that. What
you post is an expression to the world. Do you really want the world
to see you as a name-calling pouting child?
You may actually be a decent fellow in real life, but your web persona
reveals a somewhat nasty disposition. Possibly you could disabuse
Well, whatever. Your web persona reveals ... next to nothing ...
because you have only posted 10 things in your life. But you do have
some nerve lecturing people who have been here for years.
some of us of that notion by undertaking, say, to broker a
rapprochement between Peter Stewart and D. Spencer Hines, or between
Leo van de Pas and Douglas Richardson, or between Hines and the
general membership, or between....
Why would I bother about that? Certain people will always dislike
certain other people; I can't do anything about it.
If you are about 15 years old, "dislike" might be relevant. But
postings in a newsgroup should be a bit more mature than that. What
you post is an expression to the world. Do you really want the world
to see you as a name-calling pouting child?
-
taf
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 21, 2:56 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Don't. Your posts have as much right as anyone else's, and are
perfectly welcome.
That is what he does. In several newsgroups. It is what he lives
for, and he has been at it for years. He has lost numerous email
accounts amid complaints, and had his personal dirty laundry aired to
the public, but this has done nothing to abate the behavior. For a
time, he had focussed his attentions elsewhere because his posts here
did not have the desired effect, but he would stick his head into this
group occasionally to see if anyone would take the bait, and this time
someone did, so he is happy for the opportunity. (What goes unnoticed
by some of our participants is that his 'debate' with Peter Stewart is
disrupting not only this group but four others that Hines adds in just
to 'share the love' and to bring more chaos to the conflict.)
Pointless. Rapprochement with Hines only comes when someone else
presents a better target. As long as Steward refuses to let Hines have
an uncontested last word, and Hines uses every Stewart post as
platform for another inanity, it will go on, ad nauseum, until one of
them takes a vacation. Rapprochement is thus out of the question.
The conflicts centering around Mr. Richardson are of a different type
entirely, involving conflicting views on the actual performance of
genealogy, as well as the appropriate use of the group (and it has not
been helped by the actions of cheerleaders and the use of sock puppets
on both sides). This also has been going on, off and on, for years,
and again rapprochement is unlikely because of the fundamental
philosophical differences. It would reignite with every new post, even
if it hadn't turned personal.
taf
wrote:
I apologize for being a new member of this newsgroup and for having
posted only nine messages.
Don't. Your posts have as much right as anyone else's, and are
perfectly welcome.
My sincere apologies also for having had
the effrontery to air a complaint concerning the rife infestation
lately on this website, according to my perception, of irrelevant
psychic flak, aggressively introduced and nurtured for the most part
by D. Spencer Hines.
That is what he does. In several newsgroups. It is what he lives
for, and he has been at it for years. He has lost numerous email
accounts amid complaints, and had his personal dirty laundry aired to
the public, but this has done nothing to abate the behavior. For a
time, he had focussed his attentions elsewhere because his posts here
did not have the desired effect, but he would stick his head into this
group occasionally to see if anyone would take the bait, and this time
someone did, so he is happy for the opportunity. (What goes unnoticed
by some of our participants is that his 'debate' with Peter Stewart is
disrupting not only this group but four others that Hines adds in just
to 'share the love' and to bring more chaos to the conflict.)
You may actually be a decent fellow in real life, but your web persona
reveals a somewhat nasty disposition. Possibly you could disabuse
some of us of that notion by undertaking, say, to broker a
rapprochement between Peter Stewart and D. Spencer Hines, or between
Pointless. Rapprochement with Hines only comes when someone else
presents a better target. As long as Steward refuses to let Hines have
an uncontested last word, and Hines uses every Stewart post as
platform for another inanity, it will go on, ad nauseum, until one of
them takes a vacation. Rapprochement is thus out of the question.
Leo van de Pas and Douglas Richardson,
The conflicts centering around Mr. Richardson are of a different type
entirely, involving conflicting views on the actual performance of
genealogy, as well as the appropriate use of the group (and it has not
been helped by the actions of cheerleaders and the use of sock puppets
on both sides). This also has been going on, off and on, for years,
and again rapprochement is unlikely because of the fundamental
philosophical differences. It would reignite with every new post, even
if it hadn't turned personal.
taf
-
John Brandon
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
If you are about 15 years old, "dislike" might be relevant. But
postings in a newsgroup should be a bit more mature than that. What
you post is an expression to the world. Do you really want the world
to see you as a name-calling pouting child?
"Dislike" is an accurate description of the relationships of van de
Pas to Richardson, etc., and to my mind doesn't necessarily have
connotations of immaturity. After all, all mature adults probably
have one or two other mature adults they "dislike."
I didn't want to say "hate," because I found that too strong a word.
"Irritation" or "annoyance" are two other words that are appropriate.
Or isn't that PC enough for you?
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 21, 2:21 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
Thanks, Todd, for the support and explcations. I was being half-
facetious in regard to my modesty and the reconciliation suggestion .
Yet I still need to maintain a proper amount of modesty so as not to
alienate those whose expertise may be helpful to me in the future.
Christopher Ingham
On Aug 21, 2:56 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net
wrote:
I apologize for being a new member of this newsgroup and for having
posted only nine messages.
Don't. Your posts have as much right as anyone else's, and are
perfectly welcome.
My sincere apologies also for having had
the effrontery to air a complaint concerning the rife infestation
lately on this website, according to my perception, of irrelevant
psychic flak, aggressively introduced and nurtured for the most part
by D. Spencer Hines.
That is what he does. In several newsgroups. It is what he lives
for, and he has been at it for years. He has lost numerous email
accounts amid complaints, and had his personal dirty laundry aired to
the public, but this has done nothing to abate the behavior. For a
time, he had focussed his attentions elsewhere because his posts here
did not have the desired effect, but he would stick his head into this
group occasionally to see if anyone would take the bait, and this time
someone did, so he is happy for the opportunity. (What goes unnoticed
by some of our participants is that his 'debate' with Peter Stewart is
disrupting not only this group but four others that Hines adds in just
to 'share the love' and to bring more chaos to the conflict.)
You may actually be a decent fellow in real life, but your web persona
reveals a somewhat nasty disposition. Possibly you could disabuse
some of us of that notion by undertaking, say, to broker a
rapprochement between Peter Stewart and D. Spencer Hines, or between
Pointless. Rapprochement with Hines only comes when someone else
presents a better target. As long as Steward refuses to let Hines have
an uncontested last word, and Hines uses every Stewart post as
platform for another inanity, it will go on, ad nauseum, until one of
them takes a vacation. Rapprochement is thus out of the question.
Leo van de Pas and Douglas Richardson,
The conflicts centering around Mr. Richardson are of a different type
entirely, involving conflicting views on the actual performance of
genealogy, as well as the appropriate use of the group (and it has not
been helped by the actions of cheerleaders and the use of sock puppets
on both sides). This also has been going on, off and on, for years,
and again rapprochement is unlikely because of the fundamental
philosophical differences. It would reignite with every new post, even
if it hadn't turned personal.
taf
Thanks, Todd, for the support and explcations. I was being half-
facetious in regard to my modesty and the reconciliation suggestion .
Yet I still need to maintain a proper amount of modesty so as not to
alienate those whose expertise may be helpful to me in the future.
Christopher Ingham
-
John Brandon
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Thanks, Todd, for the support and explcations. I was being half-
facetious in regard to my modesty and the reconciliation suggestion .
Yet I still need to maintain a proper amount of modesty so as not to
alienate those whose expertise may be helpful to me in the future.
Yes, Todd is a nice and helpful person if you can get him to like
you. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have managed *that*. :-
( [best impression of "name-calling pouting child"] ...
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1187720461.688599.316300@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hear, hear. There was a time, now just a pleasant memory, when Brandon had
made only nine posts.
This is just another angle on Hines' own slippery and dishonest attempt to
explain away his absence from SGM, that was in fact due to the damage he
realised he had done to himself in this forum. He used his dreary and stale
"Plantagenet" post to try to win back some credibility here from new
readers, it evidently worked with Dolores, and now he is covering this one
new dupe in the soapy slime that she obvoiusly has an appetite for, while
trying the same on Doug McDonald who won't be so easily suckered.
Causing Hines to suffer the same humiliation for his aptent falsehoods and
incompetence in argument before all the different audiences whose attention
he values most.
Stewart is trying to get through the thick carapace of Hines' ignorance to
impress on him that he will suffer worse with every unwarranted attack on
abyone in SGM, one of his favoured newsgroups.
I take it that you will substantiate the assertion that "sock puppets" have
been used "on both sides". I have no idea what, or whom, you can mean by
this.
Peter Stewart
news:1187720461.688599.316300@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 21, 2:56 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net
wrote:
I apologize for being a new member of this newsgroup and for having
posted only nine messages.
Don't. Your posts have as much right as anyone else's, and are
perfectly welcome.
Hear, hear. There was a time, now just a pleasant memory, when Brandon had
made only nine posts.
My sincere apologies also for having had
the effrontery to air a complaint concerning the rife infestation
lately on this website, according to my perception, of irrelevant
psychic flak, aggressively introduced and nurtured for the most part
by D. Spencer Hines.
That is what he does. In several newsgroups. It is what he lives
for, and he has been at it for years. He has lost numerous email
accounts amid complaints, and had his personal dirty laundry aired to
the public, but this has done nothing to abate the behavior. For a
time, he had focussed his attentions elsewhere because his posts here
did not have the desired effect, but he would stick his head into this
group occasionally to see if anyone would take the bait, and this time
someone did, so he is happy for the opportunity.
This is just another angle on Hines' own slippery and dishonest attempt to
explain away his absence from SGM, that was in fact due to the damage he
realised he had done to himself in this forum. He used his dreary and stale
"Plantagenet" post to try to win back some credibility here from new
readers, it evidently worked with Dolores, and now he is covering this one
new dupe in the soapy slime that she obvoiusly has an appetite for, while
trying the same on Doug McDonald who won't be so easily suckered.
(What goes unnoticed by some of our participants is that his 'debate'
with Peter Stewart is disrupting not only this group but four others
that Hines adds in just to 'share the love' and to bring more chaos to
the conflict.)
Causing Hines to suffer the same humiliation for his aptent falsehoods and
incompetence in argument before all the different audiences whose attention
he values most.
You may actually be a decent fellow in real life, but your web persona
reveals a somewhat nasty disposition. Possibly you could disabuse
some of us of that notion by undertaking, say, to broker a
rapprochement between Peter Stewart and D. Spencer Hines, or between
Pointless. Rapprochement with Hines only comes when someone else
presents a better target. As long as Steward refuses to let Hines have
an uncontested last word, and Hines uses every Stewart post as
platform for another inanity, it will go on, ad nauseum, until one of
them takes a vacation. Rapprochement is thus out of the question.
Stewart is trying to get through the thick carapace of Hines' ignorance to
impress on him that he will suffer worse with every unwarranted attack on
abyone in SGM, one of his favoured newsgroups.
Leo van de Pas and Douglas Richardson,
The conflicts centering around Mr. Richardson are of a different type
entirely, involving conflicting views on the actual performance of
genealogy, as well as the appropriate use of the group (and it has not
been helped by the actions of cheerleaders and the use of sock puppets
on both sides). This also has been going on, off and on, for years,
and again rapprochement is unlikely because of the fundamental
philosophical differences. It would reignite with every new post, even
if it hadn't turned personal.
I take it that you will substantiate the assertion that "sock puppets" have
been used "on both sides". I have no idea what, or whom, you can mean by
this.
Peter Stewart
-
taf
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 21, 3:34 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
By use of a sock puppet I am not referring to the use of a pseudonym,
which has a long tradition in newsgroups and even in published serials
such as Notes & Queries and the genealogical Q & A section of the old
Boston Evening Transcript, but specifically to the creation, by a
regular participant, of a novel persona under the pretense of it
representing a distinct individual.
I recall a half-dozen instances over the years in which such a novel
persona appeared making a single post comprising entirely of taunts
and insults directed at Mr. Richardson. Each was from a fraudulent
email address and clearly-false name that did not appear before or
after, and that seemed to have been created for the sole purpose of
making that one post. While it is possible that these were from unique
'authentic' individuals who spent months reading the group in order to
learn the background only to make this one post and then depart, or to
immortal aliens traveling through space and time in order to insult
everyone in alphabetical order and it was just Richardson's turn, from
their tone and language they appeared to have come from a participant
in the argument, acting under false pretenses. I cannot cite a
specific example because it has been about six months since the last
one, and is not worth the time it would take to find those needles in
the haystack. I will say that such behavior is not helpful, whoever
does it.
taf
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
The conflicts centering around Mr. Richardson are of a different type
entirely, involving conflicting views on the actual performance of
genealogy, as well as the appropriate use of the group (and it has not
been helped by the actions of cheerleaders and the use of sock puppets
on both sides).
I take it that you will substantiate the assertion that "sock puppets" have
been used "on both sides". I have no idea what, or whom, you can mean by
this.
By use of a sock puppet I am not referring to the use of a pseudonym,
which has a long tradition in newsgroups and even in published serials
such as Notes & Queries and the genealogical Q & A section of the old
Boston Evening Transcript, but specifically to the creation, by a
regular participant, of a novel persona under the pretense of it
representing a distinct individual.
I recall a half-dozen instances over the years in which such a novel
persona appeared making a single post comprising entirely of taunts
and insults directed at Mr. Richardson. Each was from a fraudulent
email address and clearly-false name that did not appear before or
after, and that seemed to have been created for the sole purpose of
making that one post. While it is possible that these were from unique
'authentic' individuals who spent months reading the group in order to
learn the background only to make this one post and then depart, or to
immortal aliens traveling through space and time in order to insult
everyone in alphabetical order and it was just Richardson's turn, from
their tone and language they appeared to have come from a participant
in the argument, acting under false pretenses. I cannot cite a
specific example because it has been about six months since the last
one, and is not worth the time it would take to find those needles in
the haystack. I will say that such behavior is not helpful, whoever
does it.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 22, 9:30 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
So in other words (many other words....) you are NOT going to
substantiate your assertion.
Frankly, I don't believe you believe this yourself.
I can't recall these alleged one-off taunters of Richardson, and
unless you or someone else can produce an example I can't know what
you are talking about. If it is too hard to search the archive, surely
the man himself can oblige you from his memory. No-one has forgotten
Uriah, or Joan, or David Nelson, and it would be improbable that
Richardson could forget a similar counter-apparition.
I have certainly never sunk to his own vile tactic myself, as your
generalised smear seemed to imply, nor have I ever solicited anyone
else to do this.
But there is clearly a self-serving rationalisation going on in your
original post, apart from this red herring. You also wrote:
"Conflicting views on...the appropriate use of the group" are the
basis of all conflict on the group. Brandon, Hines _and_ Richardon all
think it is an appropriate forum for them to vent their individually
conflicted inferiority/superiority complexes in similar and various
ways. Your idea of a "philosophical" difference is just an excuse
because you choose to take sarcastic and sometimes (nowadays) explicit
shots at Richardson yourself, while preferring to avoid engagement
with Hines or Brandon.
The problem with the latter is just plain nasty spite against anyone
he perceives as more successful or more balanced than himself - that
is, all the world.
The problem with the two others is exactly similar, Narcissistic
Personality Disorder that manifests in a compulsion to sneer at others
and tell projected lies about them. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy is
hypocrisy, whenever it appears, whether connected specifically to
medieval genealogy or to sexuality or to the background of their
fraudulent claims to higher learning, skills or intelligence.
Hines and Richardson are two of a kind, and they despise each other as
much as each despises himself. This is the _only_ thing they can be
counted on to get right.
Peter Stewart
On Aug 21, 3:34 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
The conflicts centering around Mr. Richardson are of a different type
entirely, involving conflicting views on the actual performance of
genealogy, as well as the appropriate use of the group (and it has not
been helped by the actions of cheerleaders and the use of sock puppets
on both sides).
I take it that you will substantiate the assertion that "sock puppets" have
been used "on both sides". I have no idea what, or whom, you can mean by
this.
By use of a sock puppet I am not referring to the use of a pseudonym,
which has a long tradition in newsgroups and even in published serials
such as Notes & Queries and the genealogical Q & A section of the old
Boston Evening Transcript, but specifically to the creation, by a
regular participant, of a novel persona under the pretense of it
representing a distinct individual.
I recall a half-dozen instances over the years in which such a novel
persona appeared making a single post comprising entirely of taunts
and insults directed at Mr. Richardson. Each was from a fraudulent
email address and clearly-false name that did not appear before or
after, and that seemed to have been created for the sole purpose of
making that one post. While it is possible that these were from unique
'authentic' individuals who spent months reading the group in order to
learn the background only to make this one post and then depart, or to
immortal aliens traveling through space and time in order to insult
everyone in alphabetical order and it was just Richardson's turn, from
their tone and language they appeared to have come from a participant
in the argument, acting under false pretenses. I cannot cite a
specific example because it has been about six months since the last
one, and is not worth the time it would take to find those needles in
the haystack. I will say that such behavior is not helpful, whoever
does it.
So in other words (many other words....) you are NOT going to
substantiate your assertion.
Frankly, I don't believe you believe this yourself.
I can't recall these alleged one-off taunters of Richardson, and
unless you or someone else can produce an example I can't know what
you are talking about. If it is too hard to search the archive, surely
the man himself can oblige you from his memory. No-one has forgotten
Uriah, or Joan, or David Nelson, and it would be improbable that
Richardson could forget a similar counter-apparition.
I have certainly never sunk to his own vile tactic myself, as your
generalised smear seemed to imply, nor have I ever solicited anyone
else to do this.
But there is clearly a self-serving rationalisation going on in your
original post, apart from this red herring. You also wrote:
The conflicts centering around Mr. Richardson are of a different type
entirely, involving conflicting views on the actual performance of
genealogy, as well as the appropriate use of the group
"Conflicting views on...the appropriate use of the group" are the
basis of all conflict on the group. Brandon, Hines _and_ Richardon all
think it is an appropriate forum for them to vent their individually
conflicted inferiority/superiority complexes in similar and various
ways. Your idea of a "philosophical" difference is just an excuse
because you choose to take sarcastic and sometimes (nowadays) explicit
shots at Richardson yourself, while preferring to avoid engagement
with Hines or Brandon.
The problem with the latter is just plain nasty spite against anyone
he perceives as more successful or more balanced than himself - that
is, all the world.
The problem with the two others is exactly similar, Narcissistic
Personality Disorder that manifests in a compulsion to sneer at others
and tell projected lies about them. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy is
hypocrisy, whenever it appears, whether connected specifically to
medieval genealogy or to sexuality or to the background of their
fraudulent claims to higher learning, skills or intelligence.
Hines and Richardson are two of a kind, and they despise each other as
much as each despises himself. This is the _only_ thing they can be
counted on to get right.
Peter Stewart
-
taf
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 21, 5:00 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Well, no, I am not going to search through over 30,000 posts for 6 or
so of the type to which I referred - the probative value is not worth
the time. If this causes you to believe that these posts do not
exist, then that is a risk I am willing to take.
Then you are operating under a mistaken belief.
I had no intention of making any such implication, nor do I believe
you to be the source of any of these (alleged) posts.
taf
On Aug 22, 9:30 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Aug 21, 3:34 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
The conflicts centering around Mr. Richardson are of a different type
entirely, involving conflicting views on the actual performance of
genealogy, as well as the appropriate use of the group (and it has not
been helped by the actions of cheerleaders and the use of sock puppets
on both sides).
I take it that you will substantiate the assertion that "sock puppets" have
been used "on both sides". I have no idea what, or whom, you can mean by
this.
By use of a sock puppet I am not referring to the use of a pseudonym,
which has a long tradition in newsgroups and even in published serials
such as Notes & Queries and the genealogical Q & A section of the old
Boston Evening Transcript, but specifically to the creation, by a
regular participant, of a novel persona under the pretense of it
representing a distinct individual.
I recall a half-dozen instances over the years in which such a novel
persona appeared making a single post comprising entirely of taunts
and insults directed at Mr. Richardson. Each was from a fraudulent
email address and clearly-false name that did not appear before or
after, and that seemed to have been created for the sole purpose of
making that one post. While it is possible that these were from unique
'authentic' individuals who spent months reading the group in order to
learn the background only to make this one post and then depart, or to
immortal aliens traveling through space and time in order to insult
everyone in alphabetical order and it was just Richardson's turn, from
their tone and language they appeared to have come from a participant
in the argument, acting under false pretenses. I cannot cite a
specific example because it has been about six months since the last
one, and is not worth the time it would take to find those needles in
the haystack. I will say that such behavior is not helpful, whoever
does it.
So in other words (many other words....) you are NOT going to
substantiate your assertion.
Well, no, I am not going to search through over 30,000 posts for 6 or
so of the type to which I referred - the probative value is not worth
the time. If this causes you to believe that these posts do not
exist, then that is a risk I am willing to take.
Frankly, I don't believe you believe this yourself.
Then you are operating under a mistaken belief.
I have certainly never sunk to his own vile tactic myself, as your
generalised smear seemed to imply, nor have I ever solicited anyone
else to do this.
I had no intention of making any such implication, nor do I believe
you to be the source of any of these (alleged) posts.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 22, 10:26 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
What causes me to _suspect_ (not "believe") that these posts may not
exist is the vagueness of the assertion coupled with the specificity
of the number. How you can't remember any names to search for yet
recall that there were "6 or so" (formerly "I recall a half-dozen
instances over the years") with the last one allegedly only about six
months back, suggests a high degree of implausibility.
And in any case, sock puppets talk not just along with but _from the
mouth of_ their manipulator. If you have reason to think that these "6
or so" who bobbed up to insult Richardson were not just disgruntled or
disenchanted newsgroup lurkers, but were actually assumed identities
of familiar posters, there must have been some indication to back up
your idea. So what was that?
No need to search the archive to answer.
We shall see when you explain the basis for your belief.
Then it would have been the honourable thing to make this clear frmo
the first.
Peter Stewart
On Aug 21, 5:00 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:30 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Aug 21, 3:34 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
The conflicts centering around Mr. Richardson are of a different type
entirely, involving conflicting views on the actual performance of
genealogy, as well as the appropriate use of the group (and it has not
been helped by the actions of cheerleaders and the use of sock puppets
on both sides).
I take it that you will substantiate the assertion that "sock puppets" have
been used "on both sides". I have no idea what, or whom, you can mean by
this.
By use of a sock puppet I am not referring to the use of a pseudonym,
which has a long tradition in newsgroups and even in published serials
such as Notes & Queries and the genealogical Q & A section of the old
Boston Evening Transcript, but specifically to the creation, by a
regular participant, of a novel persona under the pretense of it
representing a distinct individual.
I recall a half-dozen instances over the years in which such a novel
persona appeared making a single post comprising entirely of taunts
and insults directed at Mr. Richardson. Each was from a fraudulent
email address and clearly-false name that did not appear before or
after, and that seemed to have been created for the sole purpose of
making that one post. While it is possible that these were from unique
'authentic' individuals who spent months reading the group in order to
learn the background only to make this one post and then depart, or to
immortal aliens traveling through space and time in order to insult
everyone in alphabetical order and it was just Richardson's turn, from
their tone and language they appeared to have come from a participant
in the argument, acting under false pretenses. I cannot cite a
specific example because it has been about six months since the last
one, and is not worth the time it would take to find those needles in
the haystack. I will say that such behavior is not helpful, whoever
does it.
So in other words (many other words....) you are NOT going to
substantiate your assertion.
Well, no, I am not going to search through over 30,000 posts for 6 or
so of the type to which I referred - the probative value is not worth
the time. If this causes you to believe that these posts do not
exist, then that is a risk I am willing to take.
What causes me to _suspect_ (not "believe") that these posts may not
exist is the vagueness of the assertion coupled with the specificity
of the number. How you can't remember any names to search for yet
recall that there were "6 or so" (formerly "I recall a half-dozen
instances over the years") with the last one allegedly only about six
months back, suggests a high degree of implausibility.
And in any case, sock puppets talk not just along with but _from the
mouth of_ their manipulator. If you have reason to think that these "6
or so" who bobbed up to insult Richardson were not just disgruntled or
disenchanted newsgroup lurkers, but were actually assumed identities
of familiar posters, there must have been some indication to back up
your idea. So what was that?
No need to search the archive to answer.
Frankly, I don't believe you believe this yourself.
Then you are operating under a mistaken belief.
We shall see when you explain the basis for your belief.
I have certainly never sunk to his own vile tactic myself, as your
generalised smear seemed to imply, nor have I ever solicited anyone
else to do this.
I had no intention of making any such implication, nor do I believe
you to be the source of any of these (alleged) posts.
Then it would have been the honourable thing to make this clear frmo
the first.
Peter Stewart
-
taf
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 21, 6:20 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Last I knew, six or so is not that different than a half dozen, but I
am only using this to reflect some indeterminate number more than two
and less than 10. Yes, it is vague. Maybe you can do better, but for
me, anything longer ago than last week blurs into an indistinct "some
time in the past", approximate both in terms of the number of
occurrences and how much time has passed. If, at the time, I thought I
would be asked to document it months or years later, I may have taken
notes. But probably not because it just isn't that important to me,
and I probably wouldn't be able to find the notes by now anyhow. It is
what it is, deal with it.
I already told you this. context, tone and language. If I thought it
mattered that much I might have dug into it more at the time - looked
at IP addresses and such, but I didn't so I didn't. Again, deal with
it.
Ummm. What I believe (rightly or wrongly) does not depend on my
ability to explain it to your satisfaction.
The original poster was wishing for a rapprochement between Leo and
Douglas. I can't for the life of me see why in this context it is
incumbent on me to explicitly indicate that my comments did not refer
to a specific third party.
This grows tedious, so I will leave it here.
taf
On Aug 22, 10:26 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
Well, no, I am not going to search through over 30,000 posts for 6 or
so of the type to which I referred - the probative value is not worth
the time. If this causes you to believe that these posts do not
exist, then that is a risk I am willing to take.
What causes me to _suspect_ (not "believe") that these posts may not
exist is the vagueness of the assertion coupled with the specificity
of the number. How you can't remember any names to search for yet
recall that there were "6 or so" (formerly "I recall a half-dozen
instances over the years") with the last one allegedly only about six
months back, suggests a high degree of implausibility.
Last I knew, six or so is not that different than a half dozen, but I
am only using this to reflect some indeterminate number more than two
and less than 10. Yes, it is vague. Maybe you can do better, but for
me, anything longer ago than last week blurs into an indistinct "some
time in the past", approximate both in terms of the number of
occurrences and how much time has passed. If, at the time, I thought I
would be asked to document it months or years later, I may have taken
notes. But probably not because it just isn't that important to me,
and I probably wouldn't be able to find the notes by now anyhow. It is
what it is, deal with it.
And in any case, sock puppets talk not just along with but _from the
mouth of_ their manipulator. If you have reason to think that these "6
or so" who bobbed up to insult Richardson were not just disgruntled or
disenchanted newsgroup lurkers, but were actually assumed identities
of familiar posters, there must have been some indication to back up
your idea. So what was that?
I already told you this. context, tone and language. If I thought it
mattered that much I might have dug into it more at the time - looked
at IP addresses and such, but I didn't so I didn't. Again, deal with
it.
Frankly, I don't believe you believe this yourself.
Then you are operating under a mistaken belief.
We shall see when you explain the basis for your belief.
Ummm. What I believe (rightly or wrongly) does not depend on my
ability to explain it to your satisfaction.
I have certainly never sunk to his own vile tactic myself, as your
generalised smear seemed to imply, nor have I ever solicited anyone
else to do this.
I had no intention of making any such implication, nor do I believe
you to be the source of any of these (alleged) posts.
Then it would have been the honourable thing to make this clear frmo
the first.
The original poster was wishing for a rapprochement between Leo and
Douglas. I can't for the life of me see why in this context it is
incumbent on me to explicitly indicate that my comments did not refer
to a specific third party.
This grows tedious, so I will leave it here.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 22, 2:39 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
It's not for me to "deal with" your statements, but for you. If you
won't be accountable for such definite but unverified (and as you
evidently expect unverifiable) statements as "I recall a half-dozen
instances over the years", later modified to "6 or so" and now fudged
as incidents that you don't actually recall and can't actually number,
then it is your credibility that is at stake, not my equanimity.
So the context appears to have been that Richardson was under scrutiny
from familiar posters in signed posts, and then someone unknown by
name to you interjected, and you leapt to a conclusion that you can't
now back up plausibly but nevertheless "recall"....This on the basis
of your super-acute analysis of language and tone from what you
characterise as mere "taunts" and "insults". Just whose language and
tone did you recognise? And why did you say noting at the time? If I
had a reasonable suspicion, much less a definite knowledge, that
someone was sniping at Richardson under an assumed identity, I would
consider myself dishonest not to point this out. He deserves fair
treatment, no matter how critical, and the newsgroup deserves to know
who is or is not trying to manipulate opinion.
Then you have failed to convince me that you do really believe the
implausible scenario that you stated.
Because you and your co-list owner have several times stated here that
you think I especially am running a personal vendetta against Douglas
Richardson, and that same kind of approach by unnamed miscreant
posters was the context of your remarks, as you well know.
Of course, when the going gets sticky Todd Farmerie gets going.
Nothing new, nothing honourable, just more conceited sniping when it
suits and then a quick retreat into silence when accountability gets
"tedious". Exactly the reasons I left SGM before, when the same from
you was added to repellent sycophancy from Chris Phillips towards
Richardson.
Peter Stewart
On Aug 21, 6:20 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Aug 22, 10:26 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
Well, no, I am not going to search through over 30,000 posts for 6 or
so of the type to which I referred - the probative value is not worth
the time. If this causes you to believe that these posts do not
exist, then that is a risk I am willing to take.
What causes me to _suspect_ (not "believe") that these posts may not
exist is the vagueness of the assertion coupled with the specificity
of the number. How you can't remember any names to search for yet
recall that there were "6 or so" (formerly "I recall a half-dozen
instances over the years") with the last one allegedly only about six
months back, suggests a high degree of implausibility.
Last I knew, six or so is not that different than a half dozen, but I
am only using this to reflect some indeterminate number more than two
and less than 10. Yes, it is vague. Maybe you can do better, but for
me, anything longer ago than last week blurs into an indistinct "some
time in the past", approximate both in terms of the number of
occurrences and how much time has passed. If, at the time, I thought I
would be asked to document it months or years later, I may have taken
notes. But probably not because it just isn't that important to me,
and I probably wouldn't be able to find the notes by now anyhow. It is
what it is, deal with it.
It's not for me to "deal with" your statements, but for you. If you
won't be accountable for such definite but unverified (and as you
evidently expect unverifiable) statements as "I recall a half-dozen
instances over the years", later modified to "6 or so" and now fudged
as incidents that you don't actually recall and can't actually number,
then it is your credibility that is at stake, not my equanimity.
And in any case, sock puppets talk not just along with but _from the
mouth of_ their manipulator. If you have reason to think that these "6
or so" who bobbed up to insult Richardson were not just disgruntled or
disenchanted newsgroup lurkers, but were actually assumed identities
of familiar posters, there must have been some indication to back up
your idea. So what was that?
I already told you this. context, tone and language. If I thought it
mattered that much I might have dug into it more at the time - looked
at IP addresses and such, but I didn't so I didn't. Again, deal with
it.
So the context appears to have been that Richardson was under scrutiny
from familiar posters in signed posts, and then someone unknown by
name to you interjected, and you leapt to a conclusion that you can't
now back up plausibly but nevertheless "recall"....This on the basis
of your super-acute analysis of language and tone from what you
characterise as mere "taunts" and "insults". Just whose language and
tone did you recognise? And why did you say noting at the time? If I
had a reasonable suspicion, much less a definite knowledge, that
someone was sniping at Richardson under an assumed identity, I would
consider myself dishonest not to point this out. He deserves fair
treatment, no matter how critical, and the newsgroup deserves to know
who is or is not trying to manipulate opinion.
Frankly, I don't believe you believe this yourself.
Then you are operating under a mistaken belief.
We shall see when you explain the basis for your belief.
Ummm. What I believe (rightly or wrongly) does not depend on my
ability to explain it to your satisfaction.
Then you have failed to convince me that you do really believe the
implausible scenario that you stated.
I have certainly never sunk to his own vile tactic myself, as your
generalised smear seemed to imply, nor have I ever solicited anyone
else to do this.
I had no intention of making any such implication, nor do I believe
you to be the source of any of these (alleged) posts.
Then it would have been the honourable thing to make this clear frmo
the first.
The original poster was wishing for a rapprochement between Leo and
Douglas. I can't for the life of me see why in this context it is
incumbent on me to explicitly indicate that my comments did not refer
to a specific third party.
Because you and your co-list owner have several times stated here that
you think I especially am running a personal vendetta against Douglas
Richardson, and that same kind of approach by unnamed miscreant
posters was the context of your remarks, as you well know.
This grows tedious, so I will leave it here.
Of course, when the going gets sticky Todd Farmerie gets going.
Nothing new, nothing honourable, just more conceited sniping when it
suits and then a quick retreat into silence when accountability gets
"tedious". Exactly the reasons I left SGM before, when the same from
you was added to repellent sycophancy from Chris Phillips towards
Richardson.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Contributions Of Todd A Farmerie ["TAF"]
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1187757552.344603.194730@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Todd A. Farmerie ---- flakier and flakier as each year passes.
Whatever happened to Don Stone?
He was frequently far more sensible.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
news:1187757552.344603.194730@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yes, it is vague. Maybe you can do better, but for
me, anything longer ago than last week blurs into an indistinct "some
time in the past", approximate both in terms of the number of
occurrences and how much time has passed. If, at the time, I thought I
would be asked to document it months or years later, I may have taken
notes. But probably not because it just isn't that important to me,
and I probably wouldn't be able to find the notes by now anyhow. It is
what it is, deal with it. -- to Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie ---- flakier and flakier as each year passes.
Whatever happened to Don Stone?
He was frequently far more sensible.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Would it be apt to describe Hines as a Rasputin, but without the
charisma?
Christopher Ingham
He used his dreary and stale
"Plantagenet" post to try to win back some credibility here from new
readers, it evidently worked with Dolores, and now he is covering this one
new dupe in the soapy slime that she obvoiusly has an appetite for, while
trying the same on Doug McDonald who won't be so easily suckered.
Would it be apt to describe Hines as a Rasputin, but without the
charisma?
Christopher Ingham
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
"Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1187785070.666680.104990@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I don't know if he is as gross, unwashed and creepy as Rasputin in person,
though he comes across in writing as very likely to be so. He is certainly
not as persuasive, but he is roughly as ignorant and as hard to get rid of.
Over the past few days Hines has mentioned God more often than I can
remember the entire newsgroup doing over the past few years, and even
referred to his own churchgoing, so he is perhaps trying to be just as holy
as the mad monk. In this he is close to success already.
Peter Stewart
news:1187785070.666680.104990@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
He used his dreary and stale
"Plantagenet" post to try to win back some credibility here from new
readers, it evidently worked with Dolores, and now he is covering this
one
new dupe in the soapy slime that she obvoiusly has an appetite for, while
trying the same on Doug McDonald who won't be so easily suckered.
Would it be apt to describe Hines as a Rasputin, but without the
charisma?
I don't know if he is as gross, unwashed and creepy as Rasputin in person,
though he comes across in writing as very likely to be so. He is certainly
not as persuasive, but he is roughly as ignorant and as hard to get rid of.
Over the past few days Hines has mentioned God more often than I can
remember the entire newsgroup doing over the past few years, and even
referred to his own churchgoing, so he is perhaps trying to be just as holy
as the mad monk. In this he is close to success already.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Of course, when the going gets sticky Todd Farmerie gets going.
Aw leave Todd alone. He made a sensible response to your paranoid
ravings.
Peter Stewart the Saviour of the newsgroup. Next it will be Peter
Stewart the Saviour of the World. You really quite fancy yourself,
don't you Peter?
-
KPawel
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Tis the only bad thing about digests.. you have to takle
EVERYTHING that is sent
But, I (and maybe others) are in a Catch-22
as for this situation: If we didn't take digests, our boxes would be
flooded with e-mails! Why is this list not moderated ?
On Aug 19, 4:27 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
EVERYTHING that is sent
as for this situation: If we didn't take digests, our boxes would be
flooded with e-mails! Why is this list not moderated ?
On Aug 19, 4:27 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Last week (Aug. 12-18) D. Spencer Hines posted ninety-seven messages
to this forum, very little of which actually addressed medieval
genealogical subject matter. He seems to be a sort of opportunistic
internet shark, merrily attacking others and spreading his particular
brand of anarchy, abetted by the likes of John Brandon, Adrian
Whitaker, and the the clueless Dolores C. Phifer.
Is there a format for threads to be read with Hines' messages
automatically deleted?
Christopher Ingham
-
taf
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 22, 8:20 am, KPawel <caell...@comcast.net> wrote:
Because of the way it is configured, it cannot be moderated. This is a
decision that had to be made at the time the group was formed, and at
that time there was a naive anticipation that people would use a
medieval genealogy group to discuss medieval genealogy.
taf
Tis the only bad thing about digests.. you have to takle
EVERYTHING that is sentBut, I (and maybe others) are in a Catch-22
as for this situation: If we didn't take digests, our boxes would be
flooded with e-mails! Why is this list not moderated ?
Because of the way it is configured, it cannot be moderated. This is a
decision that had to be made at the time the group was formed, and at
that time there was a naive anticipation that people would use a
medieval genealogy group to discuss medieval genealogy.
taf
-
Don Stone
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Peter Stewart wrote (responding to Todd Farmerie):
vendetta against Richardson. A Google Groups search for "vendetta"
shows others claiming this, but neither Todd nor I, so far as I can
see. Can you document where Todd or I have said this?
I did say in Oct. 2005, "Some people may lack enthusiasm for joining
your campaign [challenging Richardson's "arbitrary musings"] because of
the venom and belittling that often appear in your posts, tending to
make the proceedings look more like a partisan or ego battle than a
dispassionate search for truth." Note that I was reporting how I
thought some of your posts would _appear_ to others. (I think your
output of venom may have decreased somewhat, but I note some belittling
in the final quote from you below: "nothing honourable" and "conceited
sniping".)
I don't think you are running a vendetta; I think you are doing roughly
what you say you are doing: pointing out in detail where Richardson and
others have made errors or behaved poorly, with the hope that they will
improve their research or behavior (or leave the group). Unfortunately,
I think that your efforts have generally been unsuccessful. Why?
Perhaps partly because your frequent derogatory tone may make your posts
appear more like part of a flame war than a principled campaign, but
probably mainly because for some people the need for attention outweighs
the embarrassment that your critiques must produce (negative attention
is better than no attention). You claim to have eventually driven out
Hines a while ago, but my guess is that he would have left much sooner
if he had been largely ignored.
exchanges, e.g., between you and John Brandon (perhaps continuing for so
long because each of you feels he must have the last word?). It is hard
for me to see how these exchanges are useful; there is negligible
genealogical content for very long stretches, and a retreat into silence
would be a welcome relief.
Peter, I respect your intelligence and genealogical expertise, and I
would be delighted if you could direct more of your time and energy into
medieval genealogy.
-- Don Stone
[snip]
The original poster was wishing for a rapprochement between Leo and
Douglas. I can't for the life of me see why in this context it is
incumbent on me to explicitly indicate that my comments did not refer
to a specific third party.
Because you and your co-list owner have several times stated here that
you think I especially am running a personal vendetta against Douglas
Richardson, and that same kind of approach by unnamed miscreant
posters was the context of your remarks, as you well know.
I don't remember saying that I thought you were running a personal
vendetta against Richardson. A Google Groups search for "vendetta"
shows others claiming this, but neither Todd nor I, so far as I can
see. Can you document where Todd or I have said this?
I did say in Oct. 2005, "Some people may lack enthusiasm for joining
your campaign [challenging Richardson's "arbitrary musings"] because of
the venom and belittling that often appear in your posts, tending to
make the proceedings look more like a partisan or ego battle than a
dispassionate search for truth." Note that I was reporting how I
thought some of your posts would _appear_ to others. (I think your
output of venom may have decreased somewhat, but I note some belittling
in the final quote from you below: "nothing honourable" and "conceited
sniping".)
I don't think you are running a vendetta; I think you are doing roughly
what you say you are doing: pointing out in detail where Richardson and
others have made errors or behaved poorly, with the hope that they will
improve their research or behavior (or leave the group). Unfortunately,
I think that your efforts have generally been unsuccessful. Why?
Perhaps partly because your frequent derogatory tone may make your posts
appear more like part of a flame war than a principled campaign, but
probably mainly because for some people the need for attention outweighs
the embarrassment that your critiques must produce (negative attention
is better than no attention). You claim to have eventually driven out
Hines a while ago, but my guess is that he would have left much sooner
if he had been largely ignored.
This grows tedious, so I will leave it here.
Of course, when the going gets sticky Todd Farmerie gets going.
Nothing new, nothing honourable, just more conceited sniping when it
suits and then a quick retreat into silence when accountability gets
"tedious".
On the other hand, there is the phenomenon of seemingly endless
exchanges, e.g., between you and John Brandon (perhaps continuing for so
long because each of you feels he must have the last word?). It is hard
for me to see how these exchanges are useful; there is negligible
genealogical content for very long stretches, and a retreat into silence
would be a welcome relief.
Peter, I respect your intelligence and genealogical expertise, and I
would be delighted if you could direct more of your time and energy into
medieval genealogy.
-- Don Stone
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Because of the way it is configured, it cannot be moderated. This is a
decision that had to be made at the time the group was formed, and at
that time there was a naive anticipation that people would use a
medieval genealogy group to discuss medieval genealogy.
taf
Decisions obviously made by naïve, unsophisticated, none-too-smart,
air-headed people who understood neither Modern Communications Protocols,
Social History, Psychology NOR Human Nature.
Mediocre Academics, Technicians & Their Allies, No Doubt Were The Decision
Makers
How Sweet It Is!
[Virtual Victory Roll Completed]
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Dies Irae
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
'Nuff Said.
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1187801568.926125.166660@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 22, 8:20 am, KPawel <caell...@comcast.net> wrote:
Tis the only bad thing about digests.. you have to takle
EVERYTHING that is sentBut, I (and maybe others) are in a Catch-22
as for this situation: If we didn't take digests, our boxes would be
flooded with e-mails! Why is this list not moderated ?
Because of the way it is configured, it cannot be moderated. This is a
decision that had to be made at the time the group was formed, and at
that time there was a naive anticipation that people would use a
medieval genealogy group to discuss medieval genealogy.
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Don Stone does a flaccid Sooth and Smooth, following on Todd's pleading
"Tediousness" and retiring in pixilated, peeved disarray from the Field of
Battle.
Don tries to sooth Peter Stewart and modulate Todd's egregious opinings
about a vendetta -- with calculated weasel words.
No VENDETTA on Peter's part, Stone insists, just VENOM.
Hilarious!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------
"Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1071.1187802062.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Don Stone does a flaccid Sooth and Smooth, following on Todd's pleading
"Tediousness" and retiring in pixilated, peeved disarray from the Field of
Battle.
Don tries to sooth Peter Stewart and modulate Todd's egregious opinings
about a vendetta -- with calculated weasel words.
No VENDETTA on Peter's part, Stone insists, just VENOM.
Hilarious!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------
"Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1071.1187802062.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter Stewart wrote (responding to Todd Farmerie):
[snip]
The original poster was wishing for a rapprochement between Leo and
Douglas. I can't for the life of me see why in this context it is
incumbent on me to explicitly indicate that my comments did not refer
to a specific third party.
Because you and your co-list owner have several times stated here that
you think I especially am running a personal vendetta against Douglas
Richardson, and that same kind of approach by unnamed miscreant
posters was the context of your remarks, as you well know.
I don't remember saying that I thought you were running a personal
vendetta against Richardson. A Google Groups search for "vendetta" shows
others claiming this, but neither Todd nor I, so far as I can see. Can
you document where Todd or I have said this?
I did say in Oct. 2005, "Some people may lack enthusiasm for joining your
campaign [challenging Richardson's "arbitrary musings"] because of the
venom and belittling that often appear in your posts, tending to make the
proceedings look more like a partisan or ego battle than a dispassionate
search for truth." Note that I was reporting how I thought some of your
posts would _appear_ to others. (I think your output of venom may have
decreased somewhat, but I note some belittling in the final quote from
you below: "nothing honourable" and "conceited sniping".)
I don't think you are running a vendetta; I think you are doing roughly
what you say you are doing: pointing out in detail where Richardson and
others have made errors or behaved poorly, with the hope that they will
improve their research or behavior (or leave the group). Unfortunately, I
think that your efforts have generally been unsuccessful. Why? Perhaps
partly because your frequent derogatory tone may make your posts appear
more like part of a flame war than a principled campaign, but probably
mainly because for some people the need for attention outweighs the
embarrassment that your critiques must produce (negative attention is
better than no attention). You claim to have eventually driven out Hines
a while ago, but my guess is that he would have left much sooner if he had
been largely ignored.
This grows tedious, so I will leave it here.
Of course, when the going gets sticky Todd Farmerie gets going.
Nothing new, nothing honourable, just more conceited sniping when it
suits and then a quick retreat into silence when accountability gets
"tedious".
On the other hand, there is the phenomenon of seemingly endless exchanges,
e.g., between you and John Brandon (perhaps continuing for so long because
each of you feels he must have the last word?). It is hard for me to see
how these exchanges are useful; there is negligible genealogical content
for very long stretches, and a retreat into silence would be a welcome
relief.
Peter, I respect your intelligence and genealogical expertise, and I would
be delighted if you could direct more of your time and energy into
medieval genealogy.
-- Don Stone
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
"Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1071.1187802062.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
You have justified my remark - I wasn't quoting, but typifying your earlier
comments. How exactly is a "partisan or ego battle" different in principle
from a personal vendetta? You also once called it a "high intensity" and/or
"take-no-prisoners" "campaign" on my part.
Oh yes, of course, guessing from all the times that you and Todd & others
ignored Hines and he.....departed? Rot.
Nothing would come as a more welcome relief to me than en end to these
tiresome exchanges: the aim is to impress on the very stupid and slow
Brandon, as on Hines, that further lies and imbecilities will only bring on
worse embarrassment from every single vexatious post. The alternatives to
this have demonstrably NOT worked. Eventually this attempt might. You and
Todd have NO evidence to conclude otherwise, and indeed there is plainly
some to the contrary of your wishful view. If I go away aain, Brandon and
Hines will seize on someone else, Richardson will continue his deceptions.
They will all have only an increased scope for falsehood, hypocrisy and
unwarranted insult if not called on these each & every time. But apparently
valuing peace more than principle, you are prepared to seem tolerant of
abuses by passing over these in silence. As I sad before, intolerance
properly directed is the sole basis of law & order in civilised societies.
You are falling into a fallacy that Brandon himself has posted from tody: my
posts without genealogical substance are not time- or energy-consuming: from
long practice as a writer I type almost as fast as I think, and I don't even
think about SGM between viewings of the newsgroup at odd moments when I am
engaged on other work. Whatever crosses my mind when I see a post that I
consider worth a response is what you get, typos, spelling errors and all.
If you don't like it, don't read it. But don't worry yourself about my time
and energy.
The one thing that might actually achieve a quicker, more unmistakable
result, as I have pointed out several times, is the disproof of Brandon's
other absurd fallacy today, that I might suppose myself a lone saviour of
anything or suffer from a messiah delusion. A few posters unaided cannot
prevent these disordered fools from imagining that they have an appreciative
audience among the silent majority. The best corrective would be for
EVERYONE who dislikes their posts and despises their attitudes to protest
aloud, by posting a barrage, of explicit criticism or at least support for
it, to show the numbers and virtual unanimity they are up against. Half a
dozen (indeed "6 or so") posters are as usual being left to carry the burden
for a much wider readership, while Todd and now you are only trying to
spread some extra blame where it does not belong.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1071.1187802062.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter Stewart wrote (responding to Todd Farmerie):
[snip]
The original poster was wishing for a rapprochement between Leo and
Douglas. I can't for the life of me see why in this context it is
incumbent on me to explicitly indicate that my comments did not refer
to a specific third party.
Because you and your co-list owner have several times stated here that
you think I especially am running a personal vendetta against Douglas
Richardson, and that same kind of approach by unnamed miscreant
posters was the context of your remarks, as you well know.
I don't remember saying that I thought you were running a personal
vendetta against Richardson. A Google Groups search for "vendetta" shows
others claiming this, but neither Todd nor I, so far as I can see. Can
you document where Todd or I have said this?
I did say in Oct. 2005, "Some people may lack enthusiasm for joining your
campaign [challenging Richardson's "arbitrary musings"] because of the
venom and belittling that often appear in your posts, tending to make the
proceedings look more like a partisan or ego battle than a dispassionate
search for truth." Note that I was reporting how I thought some of your
posts would _appear_ to others. (I think your output of venom may have
decreased somewhat, but I note some belittling in the final quote from
you below: "nothing honourable" and "conceited sniping".)
You have justified my remark - I wasn't quoting, but typifying your earlier
comments. How exactly is a "partisan or ego battle" different in principle
from a personal vendetta? You also once called it a "high intensity" and/or
"take-no-prisoners" "campaign" on my part.
I don't think you are running a vendetta; I think you are doing roughly
what you say you are doing: pointing out in detail where Richardson and
others have made errors or behaved poorly, with the hope that they will
improve their research or behavior (or leave the group). Unfortunately, I
think that your efforts have generally been unsuccessful. Why? Perhaps
partly because your frequent derogatory tone may make your posts appear
more like part of a flame war than a principled campaign, but probably
mainly because for some people the need for attention outweighs the
embarrassment that your critiques must produce (negative attention is
better than no attention). You claim to have eventually driven out Hines
a while ago, but my guess is that he would have left much sooner if he had
been largely ignored.
Oh yes, of course, guessing from all the times that you and Todd & others
ignored Hines and he.....departed? Rot.
This grows tedious, so I will leave it here.
Of course, when the going gets sticky Todd Farmerie gets going.
Nothing new, nothing honourable, just more conceited sniping when it
suits and then a quick retreat into silence when accountability gets
"tedious".
On the other hand, there is the phenomenon of seemingly endless exchanges,
e.g., between you and John Brandon (perhaps continuing for so long because
each of you feels he must have the last word?). It is hard for me to see
how these exchanges are useful; there is negligible genealogical content
for very long stretches, and a retreat into silence would be a welcome
relief.
Nothing would come as a more welcome relief to me than en end to these
tiresome exchanges: the aim is to impress on the very stupid and slow
Brandon, as on Hines, that further lies and imbecilities will only bring on
worse embarrassment from every single vexatious post. The alternatives to
this have demonstrably NOT worked. Eventually this attempt might. You and
Todd have NO evidence to conclude otherwise, and indeed there is plainly
some to the contrary of your wishful view. If I go away aain, Brandon and
Hines will seize on someone else, Richardson will continue his deceptions.
They will all have only an increased scope for falsehood, hypocrisy and
unwarranted insult if not called on these each & every time. But apparently
valuing peace more than principle, you are prepared to seem tolerant of
abuses by passing over these in silence. As I sad before, intolerance
properly directed is the sole basis of law & order in civilised societies.
Peter, I respect your intelligence and genealogical expertise, and I would
be delighted if you could direct more of your time and energy into
medieval genealogy.
You are falling into a fallacy that Brandon himself has posted from tody: my
posts without genealogical substance are not time- or energy-consuming: from
long practice as a writer I type almost as fast as I think, and I don't even
think about SGM between viewings of the newsgroup at odd moments when I am
engaged on other work. Whatever crosses my mind when I see a post that I
consider worth a response is what you get, typos, spelling errors and all.
If you don't like it, don't read it. But don't worry yourself about my time
and energy.
The one thing that might actually achieve a quicker, more unmistakable
result, as I have pointed out several times, is the disproof of Brandon's
other absurd fallacy today, that I might suppose myself a lone saviour of
anything or suffer from a messiah delusion. A few posters unaided cannot
prevent these disordered fools from imagining that they have an appreciative
audience among the silent majority. The best corrective would be for
EVERYONE who dislikes their posts and despises their attitudes to protest
aloud, by posting a barrage, of explicit criticism or at least support for
it, to show the numbers and virtual unanimity they are up against. Half a
dozen (indeed "6 or so") posters are as usual being left to carry the burden
for a much wider readership, while Todd and now you are only trying to
spread some extra blame where it does not belong.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:lO2zi.24520$4A1.10377@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Peter is correct here -- referring to Don Stone's polemics.
Todd Cuts & Runs -- Hilarious!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
news:lO2zi.24520$4A1.10377@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
You have justified my remark - I wasn't quoting, but typifying your
earlier comments. How exactly is a "partisan or ego battle" different in
principle from a personal vendetta? You also once called it a "high
intensity" and/or "take-no-prisoners" "campaign" on my part.
Peter is correct here -- referring to Don Stone's polemics.
This grows tedious, so I will leave it here. [taf]
Todd Cuts & Runs -- Hilarious!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:lO2zi.24520$4A1.10377@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Peter is correct here -- referring to Don Stone's prior, pusillanimous
polemics.
Stone was simply weasel-wording, equivocating and parsing in micrometer
slices.
These are all symptoms of a well-understood Academic Disease.
Stone also used the word VENOM -- rather than VENDETTA in targeting Peter --
merely a different V-Word.
Todd Cuts & Runs -- Hilarious!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
news:lO2zi.24520$4A1.10377@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
You have justified my remark - I wasn't quoting, but typifying your
earlier comments. How exactly is a "partisan or ego battle" different in
principle from a personal vendetta? You also once called it a "high
intensity" and/or "take-no-prisoners" "campaign" on my part.
Peter is correct here -- referring to Don Stone's prior, pusillanimous
polemics.
Stone was simply weasel-wording, equivocating and parsing in micrometer
slices.
These are all symptoms of a well-understood Academic Disease.
Stone also used the word VENOM -- rather than VENDETTA in targeting Peter --
merely a different V-Word.
This grows tedious, so I will leave it here. [taf]
Todd Cuts & Runs -- Hilarious!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Many folks on USENET -- not being all that smart or honest -- operate on the
following Cardinal Principle:
They SUPPORT those whom they see as their FRIENDS and ALLIES and CONDEMN,
EXCORIATE & RIDICULE those whom they see as their ENEMIES and OPPONENTS.
This makes life VERY complicated for them -- because they constantly must
worry about and calculate precisely WHO their FRIENDS and ENEMIES are.
DSH, since he is far smarter and more straightforward and honest than said
rampant pogues, operates on an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE.
DSH simply SUPPORTS those folks who are specifically posting something which
is TRUE and CONDEMNS, EXCORIATES & RIDICULES folks who are specifically
posting something which is FALSE -- REGARDLESS as to whether said person may
be considered as a FRIEND or ENEMY of DSH.
John 5:14
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
following Cardinal Principle:
They SUPPORT those whom they see as their FRIENDS and ALLIES and CONDEMN,
EXCORIATE & RIDICULE those whom they see as their ENEMIES and OPPONENTS.
This makes life VERY complicated for them -- because they constantly must
worry about and calculate precisely WHO their FRIENDS and ENEMIES are.
DSH, since he is far smarter and more straightforward and honest than said
rampant pogues, operates on an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE.
DSH simply SUPPORTS those folks who are specifically posting something which
is TRUE and CONDEMNS, EXCORIATES & RIDICULES folks who are specifically
posting something which is FALSE -- REGARDLESS as to whether said person may
be considered as a FRIEND or ENEMY of DSH.
John 5:14
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 23, 9:34 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
This is _perfectly_ true. (I'm looking over my shoulder for mesn in
white coats as I type.)
This _used to be_ true, most of the time, but quite obviously falls
apart now that Hines is himself the habitual poster of falsehoods....
and repeated errors from wilful ignorance.
Peter Stewart
Many folks on USENET -- not being all that smart or honest -- operate on the
following Cardinal Principle:
They SUPPORT those whom they see as their FRIENDS and ALLIES and
CONDEMN, EXCORIATE & RIDICULE those whom they see as their
ENEMIES and OPPONENTS.
This makes life VERY complicated for them -- because they constantly must
worry about and calculate precisely WHO their FRIENDS and ENEMIES are.
This is _perfectly_ true. (I'm looking over my shoulder for mesn in
white coats as I type.)
DSH, since he is far smarter and more straightforward and honest than said
rampant pogues, operates on an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE.
DSH simply SUPPORTS those folks who are specifically posting something
which is TRUE and CONDEMNS, EXCORIATES & RIDICULES folks who are
specifically posting something which is FALSE -- REGARDLESS as to
whether said person may be considered as a FRIEND or ENEMY of DSH.
This _used to be_ true, most of the time, but quite obviously falls
apart now that Hines is himself the habitual poster of falsehoods....
John 5:14
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
and repeated errors from wilful ignorance.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
<lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187836088.744128.216870@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I see your point, Bronwen, but to give the wretch his due I don't think
Hines meant that is ALL there is to it, and he was talking about the wider
environment of Usenet (that he visits over hill & dale, with a sulphurous
smell) rather than just the comparatively sane & civilised SGM.
Peter Stewart
news:1187836088.744128.216870@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 22, 4:34 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Many folks on USENET -- not being all that smart or honest -- operate on
the
following Cardinal Principle:
They SUPPORT those whom they see as their FRIENDS and ALLIES and CONDEMN,
EXCORIATE & RIDICULE those whom they see as their ENEMIES and OPPONENTS.
This makes life VERY complicated for them -- because they constantly must
worry about and calculate precisely WHO their FRIENDS and ENEMIES are.
DSH, since he is far smarter and more straightforward and honest than
said
rampant pogues, operates on an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE.
DSH simply SUPPORTS those folks who are specifically posting something
which
is TRUE and CONDEMNS, EXCORIATES & RIDICULES folks who are specifically
posting something which is FALSE -- REGARDLESS as to whether said person
may
be considered as a FRIEND or ENEMY of DSH.
John 5:14
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Is it really that simple for you? Pity.
I see your point, Bronwen, but to give the wretch his due I don't think
Hines meant that is ALL there is to it, and he was talking about the wider
environment of Usenet (that he visits over hill & dale, with a sulphurous
smell) rather than just the comparatively sane & civilised SGM.
Peter Stewart
-
taf
Swineherds and Trollops (was Re: Contributions of D. Spencer
[extraneous groups trimmed]
On Aug 22, 3:45 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
I am not sure why this is considered an insult. I find swineherds and
trollops as interesting as Dukes and Lords - they certainly worked
harder to earn their living, both having to cavort with pigs.
I descend from a man convicted of libeling the President of the United
States, and another who was a non-Mormon polygamist and pension
fraudster, and both rank highly among my favorite ancestors. Its not
like anyone chooses their ancestors anyhow, so they can hardly be
blamed for them.
taf
On Aug 22, 3:45 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
we all know you are descended from ivor the swineheard and mary the village
trollop.
I am not sure why this is considered an insult. I find swineherds and
trollops as interesting as Dukes and Lords - they certainly worked
harder to earn their living, both having to cavort with pigs.
I descend from a man convicted of libeling the President of the United
States, and another who was a non-Mormon polygamist and pension
fraudster, and both rank highly among my favorite ancestors. Its not
like anyone chooses their ancestors anyhow, so they can hardly be
blamed for them.
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Swineherds and Trollops (was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
Who's that and which President?
DSH
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1187842666.711925.164710@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
DSH
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1187842666.711925.164710@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I descend from a man convicted of libeling the President of the United
States
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Swineherds and Trollops (was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1187842666.711925.164710@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Or credited.
Peter Stewart
news:1187842666.711925.164710@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
[extraneous groups trimmed]
On Aug 22, 3:45 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
we all know you are descended from ivor the swineheard and mary the
village
trollop.
I am not sure why this is considered an insult. I find swineherds and
trollops as interesting as Dukes and Lords - they certainly worked
harder to earn their living, both having to cavort with pigs.
I descend from a man convicted of libeling the President of the United
States, and another who was a non-Mormon polygamist and pension
fraudster, and both rank highly among my favorite ancestors. Its not
like anyone chooses their ancestors anyhow, so they can hardly be
blamed for them.
Or credited.
Peter Stewart
-
Don Stone
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Peter Stewart wrote:
Peter, I don't think you are carrying out a personal vendetta. You are
ignoring my point that I was reporting how I thought your posts would
_appear_ to others and was saying that they might _look like_ a
vendetta. When your criticism of someone employs disparaging comments
and insults, readers may believe you are carrying on a vendetta or at
least an ego battle. I don't know what is actually going on in your
head when you make these posts. After our Nov. 2003 interaction (in
which I used "high-intensity" and "take-no-prisoners campaign"), I came
away with the impression that your comments which seemed to me (and a
number of others) to be deprecatory or insulting did not seem to be that
at all to you. So, to the extent that vendetta implies bitterness,
desire for revenge, etc., I doubt that you fall into that category.
The issue of how your posts _appear_ to others, though, is relevant
because you would like more people to join you in criticizing defective
research or bad behavior. In fact, you would like to see a "barrage of
explicit criticism" directed against "disordered fools" who imagine that
"they have an appreciative audience among the silent majority." I
expect that you will not find a large number of people responding to
your call, for two reasons. First, many may doubt the effectiveness of
criticism, feeling it has not (at least for a long time) brought about
any change in the behavior of the two participants against whom you most
often direct it. Second, I suspect that your sometimes derogatory style
and occasional viciousness may put people off. It is a weak argument
that needs a dose of insult added to it for more punch. (Though you
don't think you are insulting?)
-- Don Stone
"Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1071.1187802062.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I don't remember saying that I thought you were running a personal
vendetta against Richardson. A Google Groups search for "vendetta" shows
others claiming this, but neither Todd nor I, so far as I can see. Can
you document where Todd or I have said this?
I did say in Oct. 2005, "Some people may lack enthusiasm for joining your
campaign [challenging Richardson's "arbitrary musings"] because of the
venom and belittling that often appear in your posts, tending to make the
proceedings look more like a partisan or ego battle than a dispassionate
search for truth." Note that I was reporting how I thought some of your
posts would _appear_ to others. (I think your output of venom may have
decreased somewhat, but I note some belittling in the final quote from
you below: "nothing honourable" and "conceited sniping".)
You have justified my remark - I wasn't quoting, but typifying your earlier
comments. How exactly is a "partisan or ego battle" different in principle
from a personal vendetta? You also once called it a "high intensity" and/or
"take-no-prisoners" "campaign" on my part.
Peter, I don't think you are carrying out a personal vendetta. You are
ignoring my point that I was reporting how I thought your posts would
_appear_ to others and was saying that they might _look like_ a
vendetta. When your criticism of someone employs disparaging comments
and insults, readers may believe you are carrying on a vendetta or at
least an ego battle. I don't know what is actually going on in your
head when you make these posts. After our Nov. 2003 interaction (in
which I used "high-intensity" and "take-no-prisoners campaign"), I came
away with the impression that your comments which seemed to me (and a
number of others) to be deprecatory or insulting did not seem to be that
at all to you. So, to the extent that vendetta implies bitterness,
desire for revenge, etc., I doubt that you fall into that category.
The issue of how your posts _appear_ to others, though, is relevant
because you would like more people to join you in criticizing defective
research or bad behavior. In fact, you would like to see a "barrage of
explicit criticism" directed against "disordered fools" who imagine that
"they have an appreciative audience among the silent majority." I
expect that you will not find a large number of people responding to
your call, for two reasons. First, many may doubt the effectiveness of
criticism, feeling it has not (at least for a long time) brought about
any change in the behavior of the two participants against whom you most
often direct it. Second, I suspect that your sometimes derogatory style
and occasional viciousness may put people off. It is a weak argument
that needs a dose of insult added to it for more punch. (Though you
don't think you are insulting?)
-- Don Stone
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
"Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1142.1187853735.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
We are on completely different wavelengths.
I am fully aware of it when I am insulting someone. I do this when I have
nil respect for the post I am replying to, or nil respect for both the
content and for the poster.
In the first case sharp words are only meant to give a jolt, to prompt
second thoughts or frequently first ones when the post appears to have been
thoughtless. I don't consider that an Internet forum is the appropriate
place for loose comment or that medieval genealogy is an appropriate subject
for vapid musing. I don't except myself from my own strictures, in case you
hadn't noticed that I draw unfavourable attention to my own errors. I have
even posted sharp words in reply to Rosie Bevan, whom I respect and admire
as much as anyone else who has ever participated in SGM or who researches in
this field.
You wrote of "the venom and belittling that often appear in [my] posts",
meaning plainly that in your view these do occur and are not just able to be
perceived in them. I reject this. "Venom" is a kind of toxic virulence,
whereas my insults are trenchant or vehement in proportion to the offense,
but not poisonous; "belittling" implies that I make people out to be less
estimable than they actually merit.
Sometimes people imagine insults when all that I have posted was an
uncompromising or unceremonious correction, as if this forum should be run
as a kindergarten programme for building self-esteem.
If you come from a perspective where Todd Farmerie cannot be little-minded
and pleased with himself, wanting to be regarded as clever & above the fray,
or that he wasn't on this occasion when casting aspersions on both sides of
a dispute that has been marked by unhinged viciousness from one side,
directed at my life and character, then you may think that I belittled him
by describing him as conceited. You are free to say so, but you have offered
nothing to change my mind.
The flip-side of your point is just as valid: it appears to me that some
readers are naively unused to the rough-and-tumble that is normal in
gatherings of committed adults in most spheres of endeavour, for instance in
parliamentary debates or in academic controversies. The insults that fly
across legislative chambers or faculty meetingrooms can make the exchanges
here pale by comparison. Thoughtless people often say that this is juvenile
and undignified, but that is a prissy and unrealistic view: it has been
going on for thousands of years and is the commonest if not quite inevitable
way in which dedicated and civilised human beings hammer out their salient
differences of opinion.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1142.1187853735.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1071.1187802062.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I don't remember saying that I thought you were running a personal
vendetta against Richardson. A Google Groups search for "vendetta"
shows others claiming this, but neither Todd nor I, so far as I can see.
Can you document where Todd or I have said this?
I did say in Oct. 2005, "Some people may lack enthusiasm for joining
your campaign [challenging Richardson's "arbitrary musings"] because of
the venom and belittling that often appear in your posts, tending to
make the proceedings look more like a partisan or ego battle than a
dispassionate search for truth." Note that I was reporting how I
thought some of your posts would _appear_ to others. (I think your
output of venom may have decreased somewhat, but I note some belittling
in the final quote from you below: "nothing honourable" and "conceited
sniping".)
You have justified my remark - I wasn't quoting, but typifying your
earlier comments. How exactly is a "partisan or ego battle" different in
principle from a personal vendetta? You also once called it a "high
intensity" and/or "take-no-prisoners" "campaign" on my part.
Peter, I don't think you are carrying out a personal vendetta. You are
ignoring my point that I was reporting how I thought your posts would
_appear_ to others and was saying that they might _look like_ a vendetta.
When your criticism of someone employs disparaging comments and insults,
readers may believe you are carrying on a vendetta or at least an ego
battle. I don't know what is actually going on in your head when you make
these posts. After our Nov. 2003 interaction (in which I used
"high-intensity" and "take-no-prisoners campaign"), I came away with the
impression that your comments which seemed to me (and a number of others)
to be deprecatory or insulting did not seem to be that at all to you. So,
to the extent that vendetta implies bitterness, desire for revenge, etc.,
I doubt that you fall into that category.
The issue of how your posts _appear_ to others, though, is relevant
because you would like more people to join you in criticizing defective
research or bad behavior. In fact, you would like to see a "barrage of
explicit criticism" directed against "disordered fools" who imagine that
"they have an appreciative audience among the silent majority." I expect
that you will not find a large number of people responding to your call,
for two reasons. First, many may doubt the effectiveness of criticism,
feeling it has not (at least for a long time) brought about any change in
the behavior of the two participants against whom you most often direct
it. Second, I suspect that your sometimes derogatory style and occasional
viciousness may put people off. It is a weak argument that needs a dose
of insult added to it for more punch. (Though you don't think you are
insulting?)
We are on completely different wavelengths.
I am fully aware of it when I am insulting someone. I do this when I have
nil respect for the post I am replying to, or nil respect for both the
content and for the poster.
In the first case sharp words are only meant to give a jolt, to prompt
second thoughts or frequently first ones when the post appears to have been
thoughtless. I don't consider that an Internet forum is the appropriate
place for loose comment or that medieval genealogy is an appropriate subject
for vapid musing. I don't except myself from my own strictures, in case you
hadn't noticed that I draw unfavourable attention to my own errors. I have
even posted sharp words in reply to Rosie Bevan, whom I respect and admire
as much as anyone else who has ever participated in SGM or who researches in
this field.
You wrote of "the venom and belittling that often appear in [my] posts",
meaning plainly that in your view these do occur and are not just able to be
perceived in them. I reject this. "Venom" is a kind of toxic virulence,
whereas my insults are trenchant or vehement in proportion to the offense,
but not poisonous; "belittling" implies that I make people out to be less
estimable than they actually merit.
Sometimes people imagine insults when all that I have posted was an
uncompromising or unceremonious correction, as if this forum should be run
as a kindergarten programme for building self-esteem.
If you come from a perspective where Todd Farmerie cannot be little-minded
and pleased with himself, wanting to be regarded as clever & above the fray,
or that he wasn't on this occasion when casting aspersions on both sides of
a dispute that has been marked by unhinged viciousness from one side,
directed at my life and character, then you may think that I belittled him
by describing him as conceited. You are free to say so, but you have offered
nothing to change my mind.
The flip-side of your point is just as valid: it appears to me that some
readers are naively unused to the rough-and-tumble that is normal in
gatherings of committed adults in most spheres of endeavour, for instance in
parliamentary debates or in academic controversies. The insults that fly
across legislative chambers or faculty meetingrooms can make the exchanges
here pale by comparison. Thoughtless people often say that this is juvenile
and undignified, but that is a prissy and unrealistic view: it has been
going on for thousands of years and is the commonest if not quite inevitable
way in which dedicated and civilised human beings hammer out their salient
differences of opinion.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Nothing in this rant makes a lick of sense, to me at least.
You have justified my remark - I wasn't quoting, but typifying your earlier
comments. How exactly is a "partisan or ego battle" different in principle
from a personal vendetta? You also once called it a "high intensity" and/or
"take-no-prisoners" "campaign" on my part.
I don't think you are running a vendetta; I think you are doing roughly
what you say you are doing: pointing out in detail where Richardson and
others have made errors or behaved poorly, with the hope that they will
improve their research or behavior (or leave the group). Unfortunately, I
think that your efforts have generally been unsuccessful. Why? Perhaps
partly because your frequent derogatory tone may make your posts appear
more like part of a flame war than a principled campaign, but probably
mainly because for some people the need for attention outweighs the
embarrassment that your critiques must produce (negative attention is
better than no attention). You claim to have eventually driven out Hines
a while ago, but my guess is that he would have left much sooner if he had
been largely ignored.
Oh yes, of course, guessing from all the times that you and Todd & others
ignored Hines and he.....departed? Rot.
This grows tedious, so I will leave it here.
Of course, when the going gets sticky Todd Farmerie gets going.
Nothing new, nothing honourable, just more conceited sniping when it
suits and then a quick retreat into silence when accountability gets
"tedious".
On the other hand, there is the phenomenon of seemingly endless exchanges,
e.g., between you and John Brandon (perhaps continuing for so long because
each of you feels he must have the last word?). It is hard for me to see
how these exchanges are useful; there is negligible genealogical content
for very long stretches, and a retreat into silence would be a welcome
relief.
Nothing would come as a more welcome relief to me than en end to these
tiresome exchanges: the aim is to impress on the very stupid and slow
Brandon, as on Hines, that further lies and imbecilities will only bring on
worse embarrassment from every single vexatious post. The alternatives to
this have demonstrably NOT worked. Eventually this attempt might. You and
Todd have NO evidence to conclude otherwise, and indeed there is plainly
some to the contrary of your wishful view. If I go away aain, Brandon and
Hines will seize on someone else, Richardson will continue his deceptions.
They will all have only an increased scope for falsehood, hypocrisy and
unwarranted insult if not called on these each & every time. But apparently
valuing peace more than principle, you are prepared to seem tolerant of
abuses by passing over these in silence. As I sad before, intolerance
properly directed is the sole basis of law & order in civilised societies.
Peter, I respect your intelligence and genealogical expertise, and I would
be delighted if you could direct more of your time and energy into
medieval genealogy.
You are falling into a fallacy that Brandon himself has posted from tody: my
posts without genealogical substance are not time- or energy-consuming: from
long practice as a writer I type almost as fast as I think, and I don't even
think about SGM between viewings of the newsgroup at odd moments when I am
engaged on other work. Whatever crosses my mind when I see a post that I
consider worth a response is what you get, typos, spelling errors and all.
If you don't like it, don't read it. But don't worry yourself about my time
and energy.
The one thing that might actually achieve a quicker, more unmistakable
result, as I have pointed out several times, is the disproof of Brandon's
other absurd fallacy today, that I might suppose myself a lone saviour of
anything or suffer from a messiah delusion. A few posters unaided cannot
prevent these disordered fools from imagining that they have an appreciative
audience among the silent majority. The best corrective would be for
EVERYONE who dislikes their posts and despises their attitudes to protest
aloud, by posting a barrage, of explicit criticism or at least support for
it, to show the numbers and virtual unanimity they are up against. Half a
dozen (indeed "6 or so") posters are as usual being left to carry the burden
for a much wider readership, while Todd and now you are only trying to
spread some extra blame where it does not belong.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Oh, Brad, you worthless posing nitwit. (By the way, I can't conceive
of any project more boring than trying to trace _all_ the descendants
of King Edward III. This would become 100x more boring if, like
yourself, I had no lines of descent from said King. [What am I
saying, I actually don't have any known lines from him.]).
If you truly mourn the loss of Chris Phillips, then I expect you know
that only one person is to blame for that loss -- Peter M. Stewart.
of any project more boring than trying to trace _all_ the descendants
of King Edward III. This would become 100x more boring if, like
yourself, I had no lines of descent from said King. [What am I
saying, I actually don't have any known lines from him.]).
If you truly mourn the loss of Chris Phillips, then I expect you know
that only one person is to blame for that loss -- Peter M. Stewart.
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com
So the context appears to have been that Richardson was under scrutiny
from familiar posters in signed posts, and then someone unknown by
name to you interjected, and you leapt to a conclusion that you can't
now back up plausibly but nevertheless "recall"....This on the basis
of your super-acute analysis of language and tone from what you
characterise as mere "taunts" and "insults". Just whose language and
tone did you recognise? And why did you say noting at the time? If I
had a reasonable suspicion, much less a definite knowledge, that
someone was sniping at Richardson under an assumed identity, I would
consider myself dishonest not to point this out. He deserves fair
treatment, no matter how critical, and the newsgroup deserves to know
who is or is not trying to manipulate opinion.
I'd like to add the little that my two cents is worth and agree with Peter
in principle here. There's nothing more frustrating to me on SGM than
someone whom I've kill-filed popping up under a brand new name trying to
disguise himself. I'd like to ask Todd and Don and anyone else familiar
enough with the mechanisms of "sock puppets" that when they in the future
encounter a poster and suspect he/she is a fraudulent identity, to please do
a 'Sock Puppet Alert' for the newsgroup. It would greatly help me, and
perhaps other list members who, like myself, aren't so computer-savvy.
Of course, when the going gets sticky Todd Farmerie gets going.
Nothing new, nothing honourable, just more conceited sniping when it
suits and then a quick retreat into silence when accountability gets
"tedious". Exactly the reasons I left SGM before, when the same from
you was added to repellent sycophancy from Chris Phillips towards
Richardson.
I genuinely mourn the absence of Chris Phillips from SGM, as well as Paul
Reed. I'm glad Vickie Elam White and Kay Allen still post occasionally.
Heated debates on the newsgroup can be exhausting. I know firsthand - I've
had enough of my own with Douglas. And if they become emotional and
personal, I completely understand leaving the newsgroup altogether. Once
that happens, life has a way of taking over and steering one off onto new
pursuits. But I hope that someday both Chris and Paul will come back to
SGM, even if they post only once in awhile like Rosie Bevan.
You are falling into a fallacy that Brandon himself has posted from tody:
my
posts without genealogical substance are not time- or energy-consuming:
from
long practice as a writer I type almost as fast as I think, and I don't
even
think about SGM between viewings of the newsgroup at odd moments when I am
engaged on other work. Whatever crosses my mind when I see a post that I
consider worth a response is what you get, typos, spelling errors and all.
If you don't like it, don't read it. But don't worry yourself about my time
and energy.
Peter is on my list of SGM members whose posts I always try and read. Those
include, in addition to the ones I've mentioned above: Todd Farmerie, Don
Stone, Nat Taylor, Stewart Baldwin, Leo van de Pas, Michael Andrews-Reading,
John Higgins, Will Johnson, Tony Hoskins and Tim Powys-Libbe. And, believe
it or not, Douglas Richardson (if they are about genealogy), as our areas of
research overlap frequently, he does stumble upon useful bits of info
sometimes, and his posturing as some kind of medieval primary source expert
amuses me. The only time I read Spencer Hines's posts is thru Google, and
only if he's responded to a post or thread I've participated in or made.
All his posts in my Inbox are deleted unread. John Brandon I've kill-filed
and fly right by on Google. The only writing of his I see is if someone
whose posts I always open is responding to him.
So I've seen a little of this long back-and-forth between Peter, Brandon and
Spencer Hines, but only Peter's posts, and actually of those, I only read
the most recent one in my Inbox and delete all the earlier ones unread. I'm
glad he gives no thought to SGM once he's sent off his responses, as he in
turn won't mind if I delete most of his non-genealogy posts.
The one thing that might actually achieve a quicker, more unmistakable
result, as I have pointed out several times, is the disproof of Brandon's
other absurd fallacy today, that I might suppose myself a lone saviour of
anything or suffer from a messiah delusion. A few posters unaided cannot
prevent these disordered fools from imagining that they have an
appreciative
audience among the silent majority.
I'm not sure they have an audience at all. If other SGM members like me
have kill-filed them or delete their posts unread, their only audience is
themselves.
The best corrective would be for
EVERYONE who dislikes their posts and despises their attitudes to protest
aloud, by posting a barrage, of explicit criticism or at least support for
it, to show the numbers and virtual unanimity they are up against.
Peter, as far I'm concerned, you're right and I give you credit for trying
the tactic of responding to all of the crap in the hope it will make the
crappers decide to go away. I'm skeptical that it will work, but if it's
not emotionally draining on you, then certainly keep trying.
Half a
dozen (indeed "6 or so") posters are as usual being left to carry the
burden
for a much wider readership,
I wonder, though, just how much wider the readership really is? I'd be
surprised if there as many as 50 individuals who regularly read through SGM,
as opposed to simply surfing through it once in awhile.
while Todd and now you are only trying to
spread some extra blame where it does not belong.
There was a point when Spencer Hines was very anti-Douglas, and it may be
some of the sock puppets attacking Douglas were made then.
Sock Puppet Alert: SGM's current Leticia Cliff would appear to be a
created-persona of Hines (thanks to Will Johnson for catching this), and can
be added to the kill-file for members who already have Hines so filed.
Cheers, ------Brad
_________________________________________________________________
More photos, more messages, more storage-get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail.http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/ ... _TAGHM_m...
-
taf
Re: Swineherds and Trollops (was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
On Aug 22, 9:54 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Quite.
taf
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
Its not
like anyone chooses their ancestors anyhow, so they can hardly be
blamed for them.
Or credited.
Quite.
taf
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Swineherds and Trollops
On Aug 22, 9:54 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
Its not like anyone chooses their ancestors
anyhow, so they can hardly be blamed for them.
Or credited.
Marshall liked to quote Plutarch, from his 'On the Training of Children'
in the _Moralia_: "It is indeed a desirable thing to be well-descended,
but the glory belongs to our ancestors." I suppose this has made the
rounds of all these groups several times.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Swineherds & Trollops
Indeed...
So it's just a bromide.
DSH
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-003147.14543523082007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
So it's just a bromide.
DSH
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-003147.14543523082007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
On Aug 22, 9:54 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
Its not like anyone chooses their ancestors
anyhow, so they can hardly be blamed for them.
Or credited.
Marshall liked to quote Plutarch, from his 'On the Training of Children'
in the _Moralia_: "It is indeed a desirable thing to be well-descended,
but the glory belongs to our ancestors." I suppose this has made the
rounds of all these groups several times.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Swineherds and Trollops
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-003147.14543523082007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
I've never taken issue with Plutarch before, and probably never will again,
but I don't agree with this at all.
If it's desirable to be alive in the first place then it's desriable to be
descended. Full stop.
From whom you are descended can be no credit to anyone living or dead,
unless perhaps to a succession of midwives, or if you are the result of
in-vitro fertilisation or some other scientific advance for which
researchers and other practitioners deserve credit.
Peter Stewart
news:nathanieltaylor-003147.14543523082007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
On Aug 22, 9:54 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
Its not like anyone chooses their ancestors
anyhow, so they can hardly be blamed for them.
Or credited.
Marshall liked to quote Plutarch, from his 'On the Training of Children'
in the _Moralia_: "It is indeed a desirable thing to be well-descended,
but the glory belongs to our ancestors." I suppose this has made the
rounds of all these groups several times.
I've never taken issue with Plutarch before, and probably never will again,
but I don't agree with this at all.
If it's desirable to be alive in the first place then it's desriable to be
descended. Full stop.
From whom you are descended can be no credit to anyone living or dead,
unless perhaps to a succession of midwives, or if you are the result of
in-vitro fertilisation or some other scientific advance for which
researchers and other practitioners deserve credit.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Swineherds and Trollops
On 23 Aug., 22:58, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
I am irresistably reminded of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes's modest prayer
about his family, in which he thanks God that he was "not the sad egg
of sorry crows".
MAR
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-003147.14543523082007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
On Aug 22, 9:54 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
Its not like anyone chooses their ancestors
anyhow, so they can hardly be blamed for them.
Or credited.
Marshall liked to quote Plutarch, from his 'On the Training of Children'
in the _Moralia_: "It is indeed a desirable thing to be well-descended,
but the glory belongs to our ancestors." I suppose this has made the
rounds of all these groups several times.
I've never taken issue with Plutarch before, and probably never will again,
but I don't agree with this at all.
If it's desirable to be alive in the first place then it's desriable to be
descended. Full stop.
From whom you are descended can be no credit to anyone living or dead,
unless perhaps to a succession of midwives, or if you are the result of
in-vitro fertilisation or some other scientific advance for which
researchers and other practitioners deserve credit.
Peter Stewart
I am irresistably reminded of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes's modest prayer
about his family, in which he thanks God that he was "not the sad egg
of sorry crows".
MAR
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
On Aug 24, 12:18 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the typically insane value judgement, no-one here is less
of a poseur or nit-wit than Brad Verity.
I can - what about trying to read _all_ the posts of John Brandon?
On any rational assessment there must have been at least two persons
to blame for his disappearance: myself _and_ Phillips.
I was irate and unkind, admittedly, but that doesn't alter the fact
that he was deliberately obtuse, irresponsible at first and evasive
later, or the inexcusable aftermath that he has not fronted up since -
publicly or privately, either of which would have put an end to the
matter - with the outcome of his promised consultation with Charles
Cawley.
Peter Stewart
Oh, Brad, you worthless posing nitwit.
Apart from the typically insane value judgement, no-one here is less
of a poseur or nit-wit than Brad Verity.
(By the way, I can't conceive
of any project more boring than trying to trace _all_ the descendants
of King Edward III.
I can - what about trying to read _all_ the posts of John Brandon?
This would become 100x more boring if, like
yourself, I had no lines of descent from said King. [What am I
saying, I actually don't have any known lines from him.]).
If you truly mourn the loss of Chris Phillips, then I expect you know
that only one person is to blame for that loss -- Peter M. Stewart.
On any rational assessment there must have been at least two persons
to blame for his disappearance: myself _and_ Phillips.
I was irate and unkind, admittedly, but that doesn't alter the fact
that he was deliberately obtuse, irresponsible at first and evasive
later, or the inexcusable aftermath that he has not fronted up since -
publicly or privately, either of which would have put an end to the
matter - with the outcome of his promised consultation with Charles
Cawley.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
<snip of large swathe of neurotic blathering>
There's nothing wrong with your own ancestry, yet you are obsessed
with tracing a totally distinct grouping, all the descendants of
Edward I. What does that say about you?
Brandon is correct - I have no descent from Edward I. My eight
great-grandparents were Jews from the Ukraine and Poland mainly, with my
patrilineal (Verity/Verby) line traced back to Lithuania. I doubt the
ancestors of my great-grandparents were mixing it up with English gentry.
There's nothing wrong with your own ancestry, yet you are obsessed
with tracing a totally distinct grouping, all the descendants of
Edward I. What does that say about you?
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: Swineherds & Trollops
On Aug 23, 3:10 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Many types of bromides are used as legitimate medicinal treatments,
but none have any efficacy in combating the ailment_typhus prolixis
hinesius_.
Christopher Ingham
Indeed...
So it's just a bromide.
Many types of bromides are used as legitimate medicinal treatments,
but none have any efficacy in combating the ailment_typhus prolixis
hinesius_.
Christopher Ingham
-
John Brandon
Re: Worth Of Royal Descents
He's a WASP Wannabe.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but his study of the English
royals does have its strange and implausible elements.
All that carrying on about NEVER wanting to read my postings again,
and then ... voila ... it just so happens that he HAD to read what I
said in reading Stewart's response to it. It must have been **fate**,
etc.
I've always found Brad's interactions here on the newsgroup to be
somewhat needy and melodramatic (hence off-putting).
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Worth Of Royal Descents
How old do you think he is?
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187984751.974072.247260@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Bingo!
He's a WASP Wannabe.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187980743.077120.202690@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
"Brad Verity" -- What a name! A semantical and orthographical play on
VERITAS?
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187984751.974072.247260@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
He's a WASP Wannabe.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but his study of the English
royals does have its strange and implausible elements.
All that carrying on about NEVER wanting to read my postings again,
and then ... voila ... it just so happens that he HAD to read what I
said in reading Stewart's response to it. It must have been **fate**,
etc.
I've always found Brad's interactions here on the newsgroup to be
somewhat needy and melodramatic (hence off-putting).
Bingo!
He's a WASP Wannabe.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187980743.077120.202690@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
snip of large swathe of neurotic blathering
Brandon is correct - I have no descent from Edward I. My eight
great-grandparents were Jews from the Ukraine and Poland mainly, with my
patrilineal (Verity/Verby) line traced back to Lithuania. I doubt the
ancestors of my great-grandparents were mixing it up with English gentry.
"Brad Verity" -- What a name! A semantical and orthographical play on
VERITAS?
There's nothing wrong with your own ancestry, yet you are obsessed
with tracing a totally distinct grouping, all the descendants of
Edward I. What does that say about you?
-
John Brandon
Re: Worth Of Royal Descents
How old do you think he is?
Old enough and getting older.
-
Gjest
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
On Aug 24, 11:39 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It says that he is a scholar with an interest in that topic. Perhaps
the people you know cannot see past their own navels.
snip of large swathe of neurotic blathering
Brandon is correct - I have no descent from Edward I. My eight
great-grandparents were Jews from the Ukraine and Poland mainly, with my
patrilineal (Verity/Verby) line traced back to Lithuania. I doubt the
ancestors of my great-grandparents were mixing it up with English gentry.
There's nothing wrong with your own ancestry, yet you are obsessed
with tracing a totally distinct grouping, all the descendants of
Edward I. What does that say about you?
It says that he is a scholar with an interest in that topic. Perhaps
the people you know cannot see past their own navels.
-
John Brandon
Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines
Oh, Brad, you worthless posing nitwit. (By the way, I can't conceive
of any project more boring than trying to trace _all_ the descendants
of King Edward III. This would become 100x more boring if, like
yourself, I had no lines of descent from said King. [What am I
saying, I actually don't have any known lines from him.]).
of any project more boring than trying to trace _all_ the descendants
of King Edward III. This would become 100x more boring if, like
yourself, I had no lines of descent from said King. [What am I
saying, I actually don't have any known lines from him.]).
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com
So the context appears to have been that Richardson was under scrutiny
from familiar posters in signed posts, and then someone unknown by
name to you interjected, and you leapt to a conclusion that you can't
now back up plausibly but nevertheless "recall"....This on the basis
of your super-acute analysis of language and tone from what you
characterise as mere "taunts" and "insults". Just whose language and
tone did you recognise? And why did you say noting at the time? If I
had a reasonable suspicion, much less a definite knowledge, that
someone was sniping at Richardson under an assumed identity, I would
consider myself dishonest not to point this out. He deserves fair
treatment, no matter how critical, and the newsgroup deserves to know
who is or is not trying to manipulate opinion.
I'd like to add the little that my two cents is worth and agree with Peter
in principle here. There's nothing more frustrating to me on SGM than
someone whom I've kill-filed popping up under a brand new name trying to
disguise himself. I'd like to ask Todd and Don and anyone else familiar
enough with the mechanisms of "sock puppets" that when they in the future
encounter a poster and suspect he/she is a fraudulent identity, to please do
a 'Sock Puppet Alert' for the newsgroup. It would greatly help me, and
perhaps other list members who, like myself, aren't so computer-savvy.
Of course, when the going gets sticky Todd Farmerie gets going.
Nothing new, nothing honourable, just more conceited sniping when it
suits and then a quick retreat into silence when accountability gets
"tedious". Exactly the reasons I left SGM before, when the same from
you was added to repellent sycophancy from Chris Phillips towards
Richardson.
I genuinely mourn the absence of Chris Phillips from SGM, as well as Paul
Reed. I'm glad Vickie Elam White and Kay Allen still post occasionally.
Heated debates on the newsgroup can be exhausting. I know firsthand - I've
had enough of my own with Douglas. And if they become emotional and
personal, I completely understand leaving the newsgroup altogether. Once
that happens, life has a way of taking over and steering one off onto new
pursuits. But I hope that someday both Chris and Paul will come back to
SGM, even if they post only once in awhile like Rosie Bevan.
You are falling into a fallacy that Brandon himself has posted from tody:
my
posts without genealogical substance are not time- or energy-consuming:
from
long practice as a writer I type almost as fast as I think, and I don't
even
think about SGM between viewings of the newsgroup at odd moments when I am
engaged on other work. Whatever crosses my mind when I see a post that I
consider worth a response is what you get, typos, spelling errors and all.
If you don't like it, don't read it. But don't worry yourself about my time
and energy.
Peter is on my list of SGM members whose posts I always try and read. Those
include, in addition to the ones I've mentioned above: Todd Farmerie, Don
Stone, Nat Taylor, Stewart Baldwin, Leo van de Pas, Michael Andrews-Reading,
John Higgins, Will Johnson, Tony Hoskins and Tim Powys-Libbe. And, believe
it or not, Douglas Richardson (if they are about genealogy), as our areas of
research overlap frequently, he does stumble upon useful bits of info
sometimes, and his posturing as some kind of medieval primary source expert
amuses me. The only time I read Spencer Hines's posts is thru Google, and
only if he's responded to a post or thread I've participated in or made.
All his posts in my Inbox are deleted unread. John Brandon I've kill-filed
and fly right by on Google. The only writing of his I see is if someone
whose posts I always open is responding to him.
So I've seen a little of this long back-and-forth between Peter, Brandon and
Spencer Hines, but only Peter's posts, and actually of those, I only read
the most recent one in my Inbox and delete all the earlier ones unread. I'm
glad he gives no thought to SGM once he's sent off his responses, as he in
turn won't mind if I delete most of his non-genealogy posts.
The one thing that might actually achieve a quicker, more unmistakable
result, as I have pointed out several times, is the disproof of Brandon's
other absurd fallacy today, that I might suppose myself a lone saviour of
anything or suffer from a messiah delusion. A few posters unaided cannot
prevent these disordered fools from imagining that they have an
appreciative
audience among the silent majority.
I'm not sure they have an audience at all. If other SGM members like me
have kill-filed them or delete their posts unread, their only audience is
themselves.
The best corrective would be for
EVERYONE who dislikes their posts and despises their attitudes to protest
aloud, by posting a barrage, of explicit criticism or at least support for
it, to show the numbers and virtual unanimity they are up against.
Peter, as far I'm concerned, you're right and I give you credit for trying
the tactic of responding to all of the crap in the hope it will make the
crappers decide to go away. I'm skeptical that it will work, but if it's
not emotionally draining on you, then certainly keep trying.
Half a
dozen (indeed "6 or so") posters are as usual being left to carry the
burden
for a much wider readership,
I wonder, though, just how much wider the readership really is? I'd be
surprised if there as many as 50 individuals who regularly read through SGM,
as opposed to simply surfing through it once in awhile.
while Todd and now you are only trying to
spread some extra blame where it does not belong.
There was a point when Spencer Hines was very anti-Douglas, and it may be
some of the sock puppets attacking Douglas were made then.
Sock Puppet Alert: SGM's current Leticia Cliff would appear to be a
created-persona of Hines (thanks to Will Johnson for catching this), and can
be added to the kill-file for members who already have Hines so filed.
Cheers, ------Brad
-
John Brandon
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
It says that he is a scholar with an interest in that topic. Perhaps
the people you know cannot see past their own navels.
Ditto, heifer, with your endless politically correct bewailing of the
mistreatment of Native Americans.
You're not James Dickey's daughter Bronwen, by any chance, are you?
If so, I met you circa 1989 when you and your dad were driving around
in a little convertible and he stopped to ask directions in downtown
Columbia, SC.
I'm betting this is another Bronwen, however.
-
John Brandon
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
What?
Oh, like you're always completely coherent.
-
Gjest
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
On Aug 28, 6:47 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What? At least you know what your problem is.
What?
Oh, like you're always completely coherent.
What? At least you know what your problem is.
-
Gjest
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
On Aug 28, 6:47 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
One more thing. I don't know what my ethnic background has to do with
anything in this discussion. So, presumably, you have a problem with
it. If so, it's your problem - not mine.
What?
Oh, like you're always completely coherent.
One more thing. I don't know what my ethnic background has to do with
anything in this discussion. So, presumably, you have a problem with
it. If so, it's your problem - not mine.
-
John Brandon
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
One more thing. I don't know what my ethnic background has to do with
anything in this discussion. So, presumably, you have a problem with
it. If so, it's your problem - not mine.
Well, WENDY, whining is whining whether it is about not enough love
from daddy, or about the sad plight of the Native Americans. So it is
*your* problem, though most of us are capable of ignoring it
completely.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tx1I5Z ... 0mII1tfJWg
-
Gjest
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
On Aug 29, 7:32 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You brought it up. You seem to have some serious problems beyond your
IQ. You think people should be ashamed of their educational level. You
are like a cat that fell into a pond: sitting and spitting and
striking out at shadows. You started out defending Hiney but have
moved on to aping him. I don't know why you are emphasizing my name;
anyone who knows me also knows that "Wendy" is my nickname derived
from "Bronwen". There's really nothing you can say - no matter what
you think you know - that is going to provoke me into having a flame
war with you. The one you were participating in has died down but
you're still all fired up. So what? Who cares?
One more thing. I don't know what my ethnic background has to do with
anything in this discussion. So, presumably, you have a problem with
it. If so, it's your problem - not mine.
Well, WENDY, whining is whining whether it is about not enough love
from daddy, or about the sad plight of the Native Americans. So it is
*your* problem, though most of us are capable of ignoring it
completely.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tx1I5Z ... arthur+m...
You brought it up. You seem to have some serious problems beyond your
IQ. You think people should be ashamed of their educational level. You
are like a cat that fell into a pond: sitting and spitting and
striking out at shadows. You started out defending Hiney but have
moved on to aping him. I don't know why you are emphasizing my name;
anyone who knows me also knows that "Wendy" is my nickname derived
from "Bronwen". There's really nothing you can say - no matter what
you think you know - that is going to provoke me into having a flame
war with you. The one you were participating in has died down but
you're still all fired up. So what? Who cares?
-
John Brandon
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
You brought it up. You seem to have some serious problems beyond your
IQ. You think people should be ashamed of their educational level. You
are like a cat that fell into a pond: sitting and spitting and
striking out at shadows. You started out defending Hiney but have
moved on to aping him. I don't know why you are emphasizing my name;
anyone who knows me also knows that "Wendy" is my nickname derived
from "Bronwen". There's really nothing you can say - no matter what
you think you know - that is going to provoke me into having a flame
war with you. The one you were participating in has died down but
you're still all fired up. So what? Who cares?
All those names and identities--Arthur/ Bronwen/ Wendy-- sounds like
you're the one who's a bit of a confused mess.
-
Gjest
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
On Aug 29, 8:35 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Arthur is my husband; I am using his computer. Bronwen is my birth
name. Wendy is derived from the last three letters. Are you still
confused? Is there a point to your impotent stabs in the dark?
You brought it up. You seem to have some serious problems beyond your
IQ. You think people should be ashamed of their educational level. You
are like a cat that fell into a pond: sitting and spitting and
striking out at shadows. You started out defending Hiney but have
moved on to aping him. I don't know why you are emphasizing my name;
anyone who knows me also knows that "Wendy" is my nickname derived
from "Bronwen". There's really nothing you can say - no matter what
you think you know - that is going to provoke me into having a flame
war with you. The one you were participating in has died down but
you're still all fired up. So what? Who cares?
All those names and identities--Arthur/ Bronwen/ Wendy-- sounds like
you're the one who's a bit of a confused mess.
Arthur is my husband; I am using his computer. Bronwen is my birth
name. Wendy is derived from the last three letters. Are you still
confused? Is there a point to your impotent stabs in the dark?
-
John Brandon
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
I thought you said you "weren't getting into a flame war" with me.
=)~
=)~
-
Gjest
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
On Aug 29, 8:47 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now that I remember who you are, sweetie, and how your shiny pink
buttocks glowed in the sunset that summer night, I can hardly wait
until we meet again so that I can once again have the sensation of
drowning in your sloppy kisses. So sorry you had to go off with that
senator from Idaho; I never got over it. Tne End.
I thought you said you "weren't getting into a flame war" with me.
=)~
Now that I remember who you are, sweetie, and how your shiny pink
buttocks glowed in the sunset that summer night, I can hardly wait
until we meet again so that I can once again have the sensation of
drowning in your sloppy kisses. So sorry you had to go off with that
senator from Idaho; I never got over it. Tne End.
-
John Brandon
Re: Worth of Royal Descents (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spe
Now that I remember who you are, sweetie, and how your shiny pink
buttocks glowed in the sunset that summer night, I can hardly wait
until we meet again so that I can once again have the sensation of
drowning in your sloppy kisses. So sorry you had to go off with that
senator from Idaho; I never got over it. Tne End.
What?