Fw: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical new

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical new

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 30 aug 2007 22:23:26

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 6:12 AM
Subject: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical newsgroups


Yes, Todd, we see things differently. For one thing, I'm a trained
historian, which you are not.

====Douglas, I think it was years ago that someone pointed out that "trained
historian" is an awkward term to use. You train horses, dogs, whereas people
are educated.

That is why I crosspost to both
genealogical and historical newsgroups.

===== I seem to remember that a long time ago you were asked _not_ to
crosspost, and to achieve your aim, were asked to send your message to one
group, re-call it and then send it on to another group. _I think_ I can
understand why. Imagine you found a piece of information about a tomb in a
churchyard from the medieval times. You crosspost to gen-med as well as the
medieval bricklayers group (the jolly cobblers). Your information is
gratefully received by both, but then the subject slightly changes as it is
highjacked by someone and either group has no more interest, they are
inflicted with messages they are not interested in. At the same time gen-med
receives highly technical bricklaying e-mails and they don't want or need to
know, if an individual would be interested they could/should join the jolly
cobblers as well.

As far as I can tell from
available Google guidelines, it is my right to simultaneously post to
more than one group.

=========== If Gen-Med requests _not_to crosspost, but the local postman
says 'nothing wrong with that', you listen to the postman?

So I do so. In this instance, my various
corrections to ODNB, DNB, and Complete Peerage fall into the category
of being BOTH genealogical AND historical in nature. It's as simple
as that.

==========I do appreciate all your messages in this regard, but Gen-Med
_does_ cover genealogical and historical subjects, covering all your
grounds. Why drag in the jolly cobblers in other groups. If a specific
message would be appreciated by another group, why not send it separate?
It would only be a simple small but courteous action on your behalf.

Whatever the case, I certainly don't crosspost to irritate you,
although you seem to pretend that I do. This is just a thought but
perhaps your negative and cynical attitude is why virtually no other
published historians are willing to post to your
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup.

=========This I think is highly unfair. It is not the behaviour of Todd that
has driven away those French, Dutch, Danish, Polish etc. contributors, that
blame lies elsewhere. Very much so. I know that Todd does not like me, but
that does not mean I stand by when he is given blame he does not deserve.

With regard to the current matter, yes, I possess additional
unpublished original material regarding the Gardiner family. However,
rather than post it here, I've decided to publish it elsewhere in a
reputable historical journal. As such, I'm unable to say much beyond
the following bland statements: Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of
Winchester, was not the son of William Gardiner and Ellen Tudor. And,
William Gardiner and Ellen Tudor had only one son, Thomas Gardiner,
who was Prior to Tynemouth, Northumberland from 1528 to 1536.

======= I think this is a great contribution on your behalf, very much
appreciated by many, I am sure. I am lucky that I didn't have Stephen
Gardiner in my website. Just imagine the vultures descending on me :-)

In the meantime, please know that I appreciate all of your hard work
and Don's on our behalf to keep the newsgroup functioning in good
working order.

====== This seems a rather disingenuous "compliment" first you accuse Todd
of keeping away "published historians" and now you say he helps keeping the
newsgroup functioning in good working order. If your accusation about the
published historians, then, in my opinion, Todd would not do a good job.
What is the good of having a group "in good working order" when all the
people who can contribute are encouraged to go elsewhere?
Again, that "encouragement" lies at the feet of other people.

With best wishes,
Leo van de Pas

Douglas Richardson

Re: Fw: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 aug 2007 23:30:51

My complement to Todd and Don stands. As does my complement last week
regarding the lovely portraits displayed on Leo's database. Both are
sincere sentiments on my part.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Leo van de Pas

Re: Fw: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 30 aug 2007 23:43:25

At the moment I am considering giving my portrait-postcard collection to the
Australian National University, I have hundreds. Thanks to several people I
have received portraits via e-mail with as a result the website has many
more, and thank goodness keeps on growing. I do not know as yet what to do
with my postcard collection depciting castles, but then I am not in a hurry.

I still find it confusing, when with the one hand you slap Tod's face for
frightening off contributors and with the other congratulate him. I'd rather
have a group that operates technically less smooth but which has great
contributors----to have both would just be wonderful.

With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and
historicalnewsgroups


My complement to Todd and Don stands. As does my complement last week
regarding the lovely portraits displayed on Leo's database. Both are
sincere sentiments on my part.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


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

the_verminator@comcast.ne

Re: Fw: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical

Legg inn av the_verminator@comcast.ne » 31 aug 2007 00:29:55

On Aug 30, 5:43 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I'd rather
have a group that operates technically less smooth but which has great
contributors----to have both would just be wonderful.

With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

That will never happen as long as that blasted gateway is open-
close it and the mailing list could become all that SGM should be but
isn't.

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2007 02:35:38

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1188513051.808779.123910@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
My complement to Todd and Don stands. As does my complement last week
regarding the lovely portraits displayed on Leo's database. Both are
sincere sentiments on my part.

In their defense, you are no "complement" to Don and Todd, or to Leo's
database, by any stretch of the imagination.

And your compliments to them were backhanders. You wouldn't know a "sincere
sentiment" served on a plate with watercress.

Peter Stewart

taf

Re: Fw: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical

Legg inn av taf » 31 aug 2007 03:49:24

On Aug 30, 2:23 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

I know that Todd does not like me,

Not that I want to get into a long recitation of who I do and do not
like, but the above is not the case, not in the least. We have
disagreed here from time to time, but that is as it should be - if
anyone agreed with me all the time, I would think they were kissing up
or conning me (how is that for cynical?). The list on which you claim
a position is more exclusive than you imagine.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»