Maud Fitzalan
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Leo van de Pas
Maud Fitzalan
Douglas Richardson has done it again! After maintaining for five years that he had discovered a previously unknown marriage for Robert the Bruce, later king of Scots, he now recants this nonsense and asserts that the lady in question, Maud Fitz Alan, actually married his father after all.
In doing this he fails to acknowledge the post that pointed him to Ruth Blakely's list of family charters and the titles used by Robert VI (son of the Competitor, father of the King) in the relevant timeframe.
Instead Douglas Richardson thanks only "Andrew MacEwen, of Stockton Springs, Maine, the resident expert in all things Scottish", who helped him to the error with which he has been misleading newsgoup readers for the past five years. The "resident expert" obviously failed to express reservations clearly enough to get through to his resident flatterer. Both of these people evidently need to be coached in basic research "in all things Scottish". Thanks to Ruth Blakely they have at last done some now, only five years too late to prevent them making such a vain, gross and unnecessary blunder. It came about from misapplying their modern view of the transmission of titles and rights in the British peerage to the Middle Ages in Scotland, without consulting the records of the individuals concerned. That is not how trained historians work.
In doing this he fails to acknowledge the post that pointed him to Ruth Blakely's list of family charters and the titles used by Robert VI (son of the Competitor, father of the King) in the relevant timeframe.
Instead Douglas Richardson thanks only "Andrew MacEwen, of Stockton Springs, Maine, the resident expert in all things Scottish", who helped him to the error with which he has been misleading newsgoup readers for the past five years. The "resident expert" obviously failed to express reservations clearly enough to get through to his resident flatterer. Both of these people evidently need to be coached in basic research "in all things Scottish". Thanks to Ruth Blakely they have at last done some now, only five years too late to prevent them making such a vain, gross and unnecessary blunder. It came about from misapplying their modern view of the transmission of titles and rights in the British peerage to the Middle Ages in Scotland, without consulting the records of the individuals concerned. That is not how trained historians work.
-
John Brandon
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Douglas Richardson has done it again! After maintaining for five years that he had discovered a previously unknown marriage for Robert the Bruce, later king of Scots, he now recants this nonsense and asserts that the lady in question, Maud Fitz Alan, actually married his father after all.
In doing this he fails to acknowledge the post that pointed him to Ruth Blakely's list of family charters and the titles used by Robert VI (son of the Competitor, father of the King) in the relevant timeframe.
Instead Douglas Richardson thanks only "Andrew MacEwen, of Stockton Springs, Maine, the resident expert in all things Scottish", who helped him to the error with which he has been misleading newsgoup readers for the past five years. The "resident expert" obviously failed to express reservations clearly enough to get through to his resident flatterer. Both of these people evidently need to be coached in basic research "in all things Scottish". Thanks to Ruth Blakely they have at last done some now, only five years too late to prevent them making such a vain, gross and unnecessary blunder. It came about from misapplying their modern view of the transmission of titles and rights in the British peerage to the Middle Ages in Scotland, without consulting the records of the individuals concerned. That is not how trained historians work.
Peter, your show is slipping ...
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Maud Fitzalan
On Nov 13, 2:54 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
< Peter, your show is slipping ...
And his dress, too, I'm afraid.
DR
< Peter, your show is slipping ...
And his dress, too, I'm afraid.
DR
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Maud Fitzalan
On Nov 14, 8:54 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is evidently addressed to me, but the remark is typically off-
base. There is no "show" and there is no "slip".
I stopped posting to SGM a few months ago, from disgust at the silent
indulgence by the readership of abuses by a few extremely selfish and
juvenile posters who don't understand the difference between a Usenet
newsgroup devoted to a specific topic and a general internet chatroom
for airing their personal interests, self-promotion and witless
banter.
Having withdrawn from the group (and I am _not_ returning to any
further discussion now), I look at the threads from time to time and
maintain friendly correspondence off-list with several people who
continue to participate. Leo is one of them, and he is free to pass on
or not - entirely at his own discretion, without prompting - any
comment or information that comes to him, as he has done occasionally
with emails from myself and from others. It is clear when this
happens, as he does not sign his own name to relayed messages. There
is nothing secretive or underhand about this in a public forum, any
more than a newspaper is secretive or underhand in publishing articles
or editorials without a personal byline.
The stupidity and dishonesty of the responses is telling, and
contemptible, as usual.
Peter Stewart
Peter, your show is slipping ...
This is evidently addressed to me, but the remark is typically off-
base. There is no "show" and there is no "slip".
I stopped posting to SGM a few months ago, from disgust at the silent
indulgence by the readership of abuses by a few extremely selfish and
juvenile posters who don't understand the difference between a Usenet
newsgroup devoted to a specific topic and a general internet chatroom
for airing their personal interests, self-promotion and witless
banter.
Having withdrawn from the group (and I am _not_ returning to any
further discussion now), I look at the threads from time to time and
maintain friendly correspondence off-list with several people who
continue to participate. Leo is one of them, and he is free to pass on
or not - entirely at his own discretion, without prompting - any
comment or information that comes to him, as he has done occasionally
with emails from myself and from others. It is clear when this
happens, as he does not sign his own name to relayed messages. There
is nothing secretive or underhand about this in a public forum, any
more than a newspaper is secretive or underhand in publishing articles
or editorials without a personal byline.
The stupidity and dishonesty of the responses is telling, and
contemptible, as usual.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud Fitzalan
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1195002208.830960.155620@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
I exposed that charade some time ago.
Peter is continuing to participate in the newsgroup in a number of ways ----
his using Leo as a surrogate for Peter, by posting anonymous messages from
someone too cowardly to sign his name, has happened more than once. It's
Peter's underground channel to SGM.
He uses Leo as his shill and front man.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
news:1195002208.830960.155620@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
I look at the threads from time to time and
maintain friendly correspondence off-list with several people who
continue to participate. Leo is one of them, and he is free to pass on
or not - entirely at his own discretion, without prompting - any
comment or information that comes to him, as he has done occasionally
with emails from myself and from others. It is clear when this
happens, as he does not sign his own name to relayed messages.
I exposed that charade some time ago.
Peter is continuing to participate in the newsgroup in a number of ways ----
his using Leo as a surrogate for Peter, by posting anonymous messages from
someone too cowardly to sign his name, has happened more than once. It's
Peter's underground channel to SGM.
He uses Leo as his shill and front man.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
John Brandon
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Peter is continuing to participate in the newsgroup in a number of ways ----
his using Leo as a surrogate for Peter, by posting anonymous messages from
someone too cowardly to sign his name, has happened more than once. It's
Peter's underground channel to SGM.
He uses Leo as his shill and front man.
Assuming they aren't the same person, Peter affecting the malapropisms
and quaintly "off" English of a slightly dim Dutch bumpkin from time
to time.
It's just as well he (Pete) won't be back, as I'm about to start
posting the ancestor table of my Massachusetts grandmother (born 1906)
back to about number 2000 (probably in chunks of 100 ancestors
apiece)--for folks' comments and corrections. I'm sure, if present,
Peter would kvetch and moan like the end o the world, it all being New
England colonials post 1600.
Where is that wimp Andrews-Reading, by the way?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Ho hum. Once is NEVER enough to get a message through to these deeply stupid
oafs. Cross-postings removed.
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195004844.873435.20900@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[quoting another inane post from another inveterate pest]
Rubbish - the only words of mine that have gone through to SGM since I
stopped posting in early September were in a few unsigned messages relayed
by Leo, i.e. no "number of ways", no cowardice on anyone's part. My name has
nothing to do with the content of messages correcting false information.
Leo is NOT being "used" in any way. He maintains a database that is one of
the Internet's best resources for medieval and later genealogy. Apart from
the more sensible present newsgroup members, several former participants -
myself included - greatly respect this endeavour, as well as Leo's personal
generosity and his honesty. When it is plain that the newsgroup has failed
to see through a new imposture of Richardson's, and to expose his
incompetence so that others will not be misled (as most recently happened
with the matter of the King's Bench and the grievous old mistake over Maud
Fitzalan), discussion takes place off-list as well as in the public forum.
(And there are more similar episopdes that don't come up on SGM.) If Leo
chooses to share information received privately, knowng that he is free to
do so as long as it remains anonymous, or not to do so if he prefers, this
is not by any stretch being "used" or performing as a "shill" or "front". I
don't read the threads assiduously, and have no intention of following up
with signed posts on subjects that take my notice only fleetingly.
Hard to tell is this is just deep obtuseness or a deliberate lie: Leo does
not sign his name to relayed messages, making no pretense whatever as to
personal authorship, so there is no question of deceit by attempting to
disguise the idiom. He has passed on other information and comment in the
same way that did _not_ come from me.
Nothing would induce me to read such posts - not now, and not when I was
participating in discussions. Nothing could interest me less than your
ancestry, except your study of it.
Michael is as far from a wimp as anyone who ever took part in SGM - once
again your botched criticism is off-base, reflexive and bilious.
Peter Stewart
oafs. Cross-postings removed.
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195004844.873435.20900@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[quoting another inane post from another inveterate pest]
Peter is continuing to participate in the newsgroup in a number of
ways ----
his using Leo as a surrogate for Peter, by posting anonymous messages
from
someone too cowardly to sign his name, has happened more than once. It's
Peter's underground channel to SGM.
Rubbish - the only words of mine that have gone through to SGM since I
stopped posting in early September were in a few unsigned messages relayed
by Leo, i.e. no "number of ways", no cowardice on anyone's part. My name has
nothing to do with the content of messages correcting false information.
He uses Leo as his shill and front man.
Leo is NOT being "used" in any way. He maintains a database that is one of
the Internet's best resources for medieval and later genealogy. Apart from
the more sensible present newsgroup members, several former participants -
myself included - greatly respect this endeavour, as well as Leo's personal
generosity and his honesty. When it is plain that the newsgroup has failed
to see through a new imposture of Richardson's, and to expose his
incompetence so that others will not be misled (as most recently happened
with the matter of the King's Bench and the grievous old mistake over Maud
Fitzalan), discussion takes place off-list as well as in the public forum.
(And there are more similar episopdes that don't come up on SGM.) If Leo
chooses to share information received privately, knowng that he is free to
do so as long as it remains anonymous, or not to do so if he prefers, this
is not by any stretch being "used" or performing as a "shill" or "front". I
don't read the threads assiduously, and have no intention of following up
with signed posts on subjects that take my notice only fleetingly.
Assuming they aren't the same person, Peter affecting the malapropisms
and quaintly "off" English of a slightly dim Dutch bumpkin from time
to time.
Hard to tell is this is just deep obtuseness or a deliberate lie: Leo does
not sign his name to relayed messages, making no pretense whatever as to
personal authorship, so there is no question of deceit by attempting to
disguise the idiom. He has passed on other information and comment in the
same way that did _not_ come from me.
It's just as well he (Pete) won't be back, as I'm about to start
posting the ancestor table of my Massachusetts grandmother (born 1906)
back to about number 2000 (probably in chunks of 100 ancestors
apiece)--for folks' comments and corrections. I'm sure, if present,
Peter would kvetch and moan like the end o the world, it all being New
England colonials post 1600.
Nothing would induce me to read such posts - not now, and not when I was
participating in discussions. Nothing could interest me less than your
ancestry, except your study of it.
Where is that wimp Andrews-Reading, by the way?
Michael is as far from a wimp as anyone who ever took part in SGM - once
again your botched criticism is off-base, reflexive and bilious.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Hilarious!
Pogue Peter is BACK in SGM -- after insisting he was running away....
Of course he never really left -- he was lying about that.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FCt_i.12287$CN4.10812@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Nonsense...
Anonymous posts with "corrections to false information" are as worthless as
scribblings on lavatory walls -- even if they are passed through Leo, who
serves as a willing shill.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Pogue Peter is BACK in SGM -- after insisting he was running away....
Of course he never really left -- he was lying about that.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FCt_i.12287$CN4.10812@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
My name has nothing to do with the content of messages correcting false
information.
Nonsense...
Anonymous posts with "corrections to false information" are as worthless as
scribblings on lavatory walls -- even if they are passed through Leo, who
serves as a willing shill.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Maud Fitzalan
[Crosspostings removed - the Hawaiian dirtbag tried to clean these up
with the Richardson trick of deletion & repetition after his
humiliating blunder was pointed out by Todd.]
On Nov 14, 2:51 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
No, Basil, I am not "back in SGM" - you will have to continue puffing
your rancorous Benzedrine in another direction (and thanks to Tish for
that joke, truly hilarious for once).
I said I stopped posting in early September, and the archive proves
that I did so.
More dim misunderstanding from the loathsome creep - he thinks that
Usenet is all about personalities, and, as evidenced earlier today,
wacko pornography on the side, whereas I think SGM should be about
information and interpretation _on topic_. If all posts could be
completely anonymous, from responsible posters, the forum would be
much improved. But as it is, I intend to stay out of it.
Hines should have the courage of his own personality and convictions,
miserable as these are, and get a blog instead of making a nuisance of
himself so inappropriately here.
And note that he doesn't have the gumption to defend Richardson on any
matter of detail or substance, knowing him for the fraud he really is,
so that he sticks to deceitful generalities about "ragging" (as if
occasionally exposing the ignorance and delinquencies of this poseur
could distract Leo and myself from pursuing medieval genealogy
anyway!)
Leo's Genealogics enterprise is more influential, and less ephemeral,
than SGM discussions - I have abandoned these because they became too
tedious, beset by idiots, but I will go on corresponding with Leo and
pointing out errors or making other comments to him; and he can go on
posting snippets from my emails to SGM, or not, as he pleases. I will
not be posting further.
Peter Stewart
with the Richardson trick of deletion & repetition after his
humiliating blunder was pointed out by Todd.]
On Nov 14, 2:51 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Hilarious!
Pogue Peter is BACK in SGM -- after insisting he was running away....
No, Basil, I am not "back in SGM" - you will have to continue puffing
your rancorous Benzedrine in another direction (and thanks to Tish for
that joke, truly hilarious for once).
Of course he never really left -- he was lying about that.
I said I stopped posting in early September, and the archive proves
that I did so.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FCt_i.12287$CN4.10812@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
My name has nothing to do with the content of messages correcting false
information.
Nonsense...
Anonymous posts with "corrections to false information" are as worthless as
scribblings on lavatory walls -- even if they are passed through Leo, who
serves as a willing shill.
More dim misunderstanding from the loathsome creep - he thinks that
Usenet is all about personalities, and, as evidenced earlier today,
wacko pornography on the side, whereas I think SGM should be about
information and interpretation _on topic_. If all posts could be
completely anonymous, from responsible posters, the forum would be
much improved. But as it is, I intend to stay out of it.
Hines should have the courage of his own personality and convictions,
miserable as these are, and get a blog instead of making a nuisance of
himself so inappropriately here.
And note that he doesn't have the gumption to defend Richardson on any
matter of detail or substance, knowing him for the fraud he really is,
so that he sticks to deceitful generalities about "ragging" (as if
occasionally exposing the ignorance and delinquencies of this poseur
could distract Leo and myself from pursuing medieval genealogy
anyway!)
Leo's Genealogics enterprise is more influential, and less ephemeral,
than SGM discussions - I have abandoned these because they became too
tedious, beset by idiots, but I will go on corresponding with Leo and
pointing out errors or making other comments to him; and he can go on
posting snippets from my emails to SGM, or not, as he pleases. I will
not be posting further.
Peter Stewart
-
John Higgins
The Richardson cesspool
I can understand and agree with Peter Stewart's decision to refrain from
participation in Gen-Med/SGM, given the current state of the forum.
However, I think he is wrong, in this case, in saying that the newsgroup
"has failed to see through a new imposture of Richardson's". In fact, I
think it's clear that Richardson's errors in at least these two cases (Maud
FitzAlan and the King's Bench) were quickly exposed by Leo and Todd and
others - causing Richardson of course to simply cover his tracks and try to
remove all evidence of his errors, while denigrating those who exposed him
or noted his errors. This is certainly not the first case of this - it has
happened regularly, and Richardson has clearly earned his reputation as a
liar, a fraud, a braggart, and a bully.
I think the more critical issue here is NOT that participants don't blow the
whistle on Richardson (I've done so myself more than once), but that it does
absolutely no good. He simply continues his shoddy behavior - seeking
"collegial" behavior in others while refusing to participate in it himself -
and is supported and cheered on by his claque of sock puppets. I see no
hope in this regard, as he obviously has no shame. And Peter, the message
will NEVER "get through to these deeply stupid oafs". [And "oaf" seems
appropriate - if not too mild - for someone who refers to Leo as a "slightly
dim Dutch bumpkin".]
Perhaps this is why Michael Andrews-Redding and numerous other serious
participants have chosen to withdraw or at least greatly restrict their
contributions. In addition to Michael, the list is long: Chris Phillips,
Hap Sutliff, Rosie Bevan, Brad Verity, Tim Powys-Lybbe, Louise Staley, to
name a few. It seems that the best course of action is simply to leave this
cesspool to the likes of Richardson and his gang.
Good-bye....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Maud Fitzalan
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
participation in Gen-Med/SGM, given the current state of the forum.
However, I think he is wrong, in this case, in saying that the newsgroup
"has failed to see through a new imposture of Richardson's". In fact, I
think it's clear that Richardson's errors in at least these two cases (Maud
FitzAlan and the King's Bench) were quickly exposed by Leo and Todd and
others - causing Richardson of course to simply cover his tracks and try to
remove all evidence of his errors, while denigrating those who exposed him
or noted his errors. This is certainly not the first case of this - it has
happened regularly, and Richardson has clearly earned his reputation as a
liar, a fraud, a braggart, and a bully.
I think the more critical issue here is NOT that participants don't blow the
whistle on Richardson (I've done so myself more than once), but that it does
absolutely no good. He simply continues his shoddy behavior - seeking
"collegial" behavior in others while refusing to participate in it himself -
and is supported and cheered on by his claque of sock puppets. I see no
hope in this regard, as he obviously has no shame. And Peter, the message
will NEVER "get through to these deeply stupid oafs". [And "oaf" seems
appropriate - if not too mild - for someone who refers to Leo as a "slightly
dim Dutch bumpkin".]
Perhaps this is why Michael Andrews-Redding and numerous other serious
participants have chosen to withdraw or at least greatly restrict their
contributions. In addition to Michael, the list is long: Chris Phillips,
Hap Sutliff, Rosie Bevan, Brad Verity, Tim Powys-Lybbe, Louise Staley, to
name a few. It seems that the best course of action is simply to leave this
cesspool to the likes of Richardson and his gang.
Good-bye....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Maud Fitzalan
Ho hum. Once is NEVER enough to get a message through to these deeply
stupid
oafs. Cross-postings removed.
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195004844.873435.20900@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[quoting another inane post from another inveterate pest]
Peter is continuing to participate in the newsgroup in a number of
ways ----
his using Leo as a surrogate for Peter, by posting anonymous messages
from
someone too cowardly to sign his name, has happened more than once.
It's
Peter's underground channel to SGM.
Rubbish - the only words of mine that have gone through to SGM since I
stopped posting in early September were in a few unsigned messages relayed
by Leo, i.e. no "number of ways", no cowardice on anyone's part. My name
has
nothing to do with the content of messages correcting false information.
He uses Leo as his shill and front man.
Leo is NOT being "used" in any way. He maintains a database that is one of
the Internet's best resources for medieval and later genealogy. Apart from
the more sensible present newsgroup members, several former participants -
myself included - greatly respect this endeavour, as well as Leo's
personal
generosity and his honesty. When it is plain that the newsgroup has failed
to see through a new imposture of Richardson's, and to expose his
incompetence so that others will not be misled (as most recently happened
with the matter of the King's Bench and the grievous old mistake over Maud
Fitzalan), discussion takes place off-list as well as in the public forum.
(And there are more similar episopdes that don't come up on SGM.) If Leo
chooses to share information received privately, knowng that he is free to
do so as long as it remains anonymous, or not to do so if he prefers, this
is not by any stretch being "used" or performing as a "shill" or "front".
I
don't read the threads assiduously, and have no intention of following up
with signed posts on subjects that take my notice only fleetingly.
Assuming they aren't the same person, Peter affecting the malapropisms
and quaintly "off" English of a slightly dim Dutch bumpkin from time
to time.
Hard to tell is this is just deep obtuseness or a deliberate lie: Leo does
not sign his name to relayed messages, making no pretense whatever as to
personal authorship, so there is no question of deceit by attempting to
disguise the idiom. He has passed on other information and comment in the
same way that did _not_ come from me.
It's just as well he (Pete) won't be back, as I'm about to start
posting the ancestor table of my Massachusetts grandmother (born 1906)
back to about number 2000 (probably in chunks of 100 ancestors
apiece)--for folks' comments and corrections. I'm sure, if present,
Peter would kvetch and moan like the end o the world, it all being New
England colonials post 1600.
Nothing would induce me to read such posts - not now, and not when I was
participating in discussions. Nothing could interest me less than your
ancestry, except your study of it.
Where is that wimp Andrews-Reading, by the way?
Michael is as far from a wimp as anyone who ever took part in SGM - once
again your botched criticism is off-base, reflexive and bilious.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Translation from the Pogue Stewartian:
"I intend to keep on using Leo as my front man and shill, so I can hide
behind a mask of relative anonymity, when I want to post something to SGM."
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1195020039.916867.154250@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
"I intend to keep on using Leo as my front man and shill, so I can hide
behind a mask of relative anonymity, when I want to post something to SGM."
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1195020039.916867.154250@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Leo's Genealogics enterprise is more influential, and less ephemeral,
than SGM discussions - I have abandoned these because they became too
tedious, beset by idiots, but I will go on corresponding with Leo and
pointing out errors or making other comments to him; and he can go on
posting snippets from my emails to SGM, or not, as he pleases. I will
not be posting further.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: The Richardson cesspool
Dear John,
When you mentioned people who have left, you forgot Tony Hoskins, he has
gone also.
To leave the cess-pool to Richardson and his gang will deny access to
knowledge, support, advice (and so on) to many. Where else to go?
It would be another notch on the belt of Basil the Benzedrine Puff Adder. No
wonder William Addams Reitwiesner denied him access to Gen-Royal.
I suppose we have to endure the yahoos, the best seems to ignore them.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
--- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 5:17 PM
Subject: The Richardson cesspool
When you mentioned people who have left, you forgot Tony Hoskins, he has
gone also.
To leave the cess-pool to Richardson and his gang will deny access to
knowledge, support, advice (and so on) to many. Where else to go?
It would be another notch on the belt of Basil the Benzedrine Puff Adder. No
wonder William Addams Reitwiesner denied him access to Gen-Royal.
I suppose we have to endure the yahoos, the best seems to ignore them.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
--- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 5:17 PM
Subject: The Richardson cesspool
I can understand and agree with Peter Stewart's decision to refrain from
participation in Gen-Med/SGM, given the current state of the forum.
However, I think he is wrong, in this case, in saying that the newsgroup
"has failed to see through a new imposture of Richardson's". In fact, I
think it's clear that Richardson's errors in at least these two cases
(Maud
FitzAlan and the King's Bench) were quickly exposed by Leo and Todd and
others - causing Richardson of course to simply cover his tracks and try
to
remove all evidence of his errors, while denigrating those who exposed him
or noted his errors. This is certainly not the first case of this - it
has
happened regularly, and Richardson has clearly earned his reputation as a
liar, a fraud, a braggart, and a bully.
I think the more critical issue here is NOT that participants don't blow
the
whistle on Richardson (I've done so myself more than once), but that it
does
absolutely no good. He simply continues his shoddy behavior - seeking
"collegial" behavior in others while refusing to participate in it
himself -
and is supported and cheered on by his claque of sock puppets. I see no
hope in this regard, as he obviously has no shame. And Peter, the message
will NEVER "get through to these deeply stupid oafs". [And "oaf" seems
appropriate - if not too mild - for someone who refers to Leo as a
"slightly
dim Dutch bumpkin".]
Perhaps this is why Michael Andrews-Redding and numerous other serious
participants have chosen to withdraw or at least greatly restrict their
contributions. In addition to Michael, the list is long: Chris Phillips,
Hap Sutliff, Rosie Bevan, Brad Verity, Tim Powys-Lybbe, Louise Staley, to
name a few. It seems that the best course of action is simply to leave
this
cesspool to the likes of Richardson and his gang.
Good-bye....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Maud Fitzalan
Ho hum. Once is NEVER enough to get a message through to these deeply
stupid
oafs. Cross-postings removed.
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195004844.873435.20900@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[quoting another inane post from another inveterate pest]
Peter is continuing to participate in the newsgroup in a number of
ways ----
his using Leo as a surrogate for Peter, by posting anonymous messages
from
someone too cowardly to sign his name, has happened more than once.
It's
Peter's underground channel to SGM.
Rubbish - the only words of mine that have gone through to SGM since I
stopped posting in early September were in a few unsigned messages
relayed
by Leo, i.e. no "number of ways", no cowardice on anyone's part. My name
has
nothing to do with the content of messages correcting false information.
He uses Leo as his shill and front man.
Leo is NOT being "used" in any way. He maintains a database that is one
of
the Internet's best resources for medieval and later genealogy. Apart
from
the more sensible present newsgroup members, several former
participants -
myself included - greatly respect this endeavour, as well as Leo's
personal
generosity and his honesty. When it is plain that the newsgroup has
failed
to see through a new imposture of Richardson's, and to expose his
incompetence so that others will not be misled (as most recently happened
with the matter of the King's Bench and the grievous old mistake over
Maud
Fitzalan), discussion takes place off-list as well as in the public
forum.
(And there are more similar episopdes that don't come up on SGM.) If Leo
chooses to share information received privately, knowng that he is free
to
do so as long as it remains anonymous, or not to do so if he prefers,
this
is not by any stretch being "used" or performing as a "shill" or "front".
I
don't read the threads assiduously, and have no intention of following up
with signed posts on subjects that take my notice only fleetingly.
Assuming they aren't the same person, Peter affecting the malapropisms
and quaintly "off" English of a slightly dim Dutch bumpkin from time
to time.
Hard to tell is this is just deep obtuseness or a deliberate lie: Leo
does
not sign his name to relayed messages, making no pretense whatever as to
personal authorship, so there is no question of deceit by attempting to
disguise the idiom. He has passed on other information and comment in the
same way that did _not_ come from me.
It's just as well he (Pete) won't be back, as I'm about to start
posting the ancestor table of my Massachusetts grandmother (born 1906)
back to about number 2000 (probably in chunks of 100 ancestors
apiece)--for folks' comments and corrections. I'm sure, if present,
Peter would kvetch and moan like the end o the world, it all being New
England colonials post 1600.
Nothing would induce me to read such posts - not now, and not when I was
participating in discussions. Nothing could interest me less than your
ancestry, except your study of it.
Where is that wimp Andrews-Reading, by the way?
Michael is as far from a wimp as anyone who ever took part in SGM - once
again your botched criticism is off-base, reflexive and bilious.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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
-------------------------------
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
-
Gjest
Re: The Richardson cesspool
On Nov 13, 10:17 pm, "John Higgins" <jthigg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Not me - I had not the time to follow either thread. I only commented
upon twice being struck by the cognitive dissonance of polar opposite
interpretations from the same person, each uttered with such absolute
certainty, and pointed them out as a word to the wise (well, that and
seeing him try to manhandle a female poster for failing to show him
the deference supposedly due him as a man).
taf
taf
I can understand and agree with Peter Stewart's decision to refrain from
participation in Gen-Med/SGM, given the current state of the forum.
However, I think he is wrong, in this case, in saying that the newsgroup
"has failed to see through a new imposture of Richardson's". In fact, I
think it's clear that Richardson's errors in at least these two cases (Maud
FitzAlan and the King's Bench) were quickly exposed by Leo and Todd and
others
Not me - I had not the time to follow either thread. I only commented
upon twice being struck by the cognitive dissonance of polar opposite
interpretations from the same person, each uttered with such absolute
certainty, and pointed them out as a word to the wise (well, that and
seeing him try to manhandle a female poster for failing to show him
the deference supposedly due him as a man).
taf
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
TAF-TAF Is A Slow Learner
Hilarious!
taf-taf still doesn't understand that "Leticia 'Tish' Cluff" is a sock
puppet.
DSH
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1195022252.684295.154330@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
taf-taf still doesn't understand that "Leticia 'Tish' Cluff" is a sock
puppet.
DSH
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1195022252.684295.154330@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Not me - I had not the time to follow either thread. I only commented
upon twice being struck by the cognitive dissonance of polar opposite
interpretations from the same person, each uttered with such absolute
certainty, and pointed them out as a word to the wise (well, that and
seeing him try to manhandle a female poster for failing to show him
the deference supposedly due him as a man).
taf
taf
-
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Re: Maud Fitzalan
On 14 nov, 00:26, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Collegial scholarship at it again?
Pierre
On Nov 13, 2:54 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter, your show is slipping ...
And his dress, too, I'm afraid.
Collegial scholarship at it again?
Pierre
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Peter Stewart has many faults...
Of that we have abundant evidence -- on the record -- including the brain
damage he suffers from, as a result of his drunken fall on the cobblestone
at Oxford.
But I've never heard he is a cross dresser.
Still...
Perhaps that would be useful to a Genealogist -- in developing empathy with
his female ancestors and relatives.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:1195066828.398487.20350@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Of that we have abundant evidence -- on the record -- including the brain
damage he suffers from, as a result of his drunken fall on the cobblestone
at Oxford.
But I've never heard he is a cross dresser.
Still...
Perhaps that would be useful to a Genealogist -- in developing empathy with
his female ancestors and relatives.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:1195066828.398487.20350@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 14 nov, 00:26, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 13, 2:54 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter, your show is slipping ...
And his dress, too, I'm afraid.
Collegial scholarship at it again?
Pierre
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: Maud Fitzalan
How many worthwhile contributors have left this forum because of the
asinine rantings of those who clog up the system with venom and spite which
has nothing to do with medieval genealogy?
Most of us haven't the stomach for a fight with them, but Peter tried, and
has now given up in disgust. It would be tragic if someone like Leo left as
well.
Shame on you, who have driven away the ones we have relied on for scholarly
information.
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: Peter Stewart
Date: 11/14/07 16:35:14
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Maud Fitzalan
[Crosspostings removed - the Hawaiian dirtbag tried to clean these up
with the Richardson trick of deletion & repetition after his
humiliating blunder was pointed out by Todd.]
On Nov 14, 2:51 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
No, Basil, I am not "back in SGM" - you will have to continue puffing
your rancorous Benzedrine in another direction (and thanks to Tish for
that joke, truly hilarious for once).
I said I stopped posting in early September, and the archive proves
that I did so.
More dim misunderstanding from the loathsome creep - he thinks that
Usenet is all about personalities, and, as evidenced earlier today,
wacko pornography on the side, whereas I think SGM should be about
information and interpretation _on topic_. If all posts could be
completely anonymous, from responsible posters, the forum would be
much improved. But as it is, I intend to stay out of it.
Hines should have the courage of his own personality and convictions,
miserable as these are, and get a blog instead of making a nuisance of
himself so inappropriately here.
And note that he doesn't have the gumption to defend Richardson on any
matter of detail or substance, knowing him for the fraud he really is,
so that he sticks to deceitful generalities about "ragging" (as if
occasionally exposing the ignorance and delinquencies of this poseur
could distract Leo and myself from pursuing medieval genealogy
anyway!)
Leo's Genealogics enterprise is more influential, and less ephemeral,
than SGM discussions - I have abandoned these because they became too
tedious, beset by idiots, but I will go on corresponding with Leo and
pointing out errors or making other comments to him; and he can go on
posting snippets from my emails to SGM, or not, as he pleases. I will
not be posting further.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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
asinine rantings of those who clog up the system with venom and spite which
has nothing to do with medieval genealogy?
Most of us haven't the stomach for a fight with them, but Peter tried, and
has now given up in disgust. It would be tragic if someone like Leo left as
well.
Shame on you, who have driven away the ones we have relied on for scholarly
information.
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: Peter Stewart
Date: 11/14/07 16:35:14
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Maud Fitzalan
[Crosspostings removed - the Hawaiian dirtbag tried to clean these up
with the Richardson trick of deletion & repetition after his
humiliating blunder was pointed out by Todd.]
On Nov 14, 2:51 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Hilarious!
Pogue Peter is BACK in SGM -- after insisting he was running away....
No, Basil, I am not "back in SGM" - you will have to continue puffing
your rancorous Benzedrine in another direction (and thanks to Tish for
that joke, truly hilarious for once).
Of course he never really left -- he was lying about that.
I said I stopped posting in early September, and the archive proves
that I did so.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FCt_i.12287$CN4.10812@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
My name has nothing to do with the content of messages correcting false
information.
Nonsense...
Anonymous posts with "corrections to false information" are as worthless
as
scribblings on lavatory walls -- even if they are passed through Leo, who
serves as a willing shill.
More dim misunderstanding from the loathsome creep - he thinks that
Usenet is all about personalities, and, as evidenced earlier today,
wacko pornography on the side, whereas I think SGM should be about
information and interpretation _on topic_. If all posts could be
completely anonymous, from responsible posters, the forum would be
much improved. But as it is, I intend to stay out of it.
Hines should have the courage of his own personality and convictions,
miserable as these are, and get a blog instead of making a nuisance of
himself so inappropriately here.
And note that he doesn't have the gumption to defend Richardson on any
matter of detail or substance, knowing him for the fraud he really is,
so that he sticks to deceitful generalities about "ragging" (as if
occasionally exposing the ignorance and delinquencies of this poseur
could distract Leo and myself from pursuing medieval genealogy
anyway!)
Leo's Genealogics enterprise is more influential, and less ephemeral,
than SGM discussions - I have abandoned these because they became too
tedious, beset by idiots, but I will go on corresponding with Leo and
pointing out errors or making other comments to him; and he can go on
posting snippets from my emails to SGM, or not, as he pleases. I will
not be posting further.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Dear Merilyn,
Richardson and Hines have no shame. By edging out people they expect to
become the big fish, but it will be a very small pond.
By edging out people who critise Richardson simply will mean that Richardson
is always right and become the big genealogical guru he already thinks he
is. Only gullible people will remain and be in awe of the _oh so
knowledgeable_ Mr. Richardson, and then he will sell even more books, the
books he regularly touts on gen-med.
Richardson is trying to high-jack gen-med for his selfish reasons. His
simulposting games are just to taunt Todd Farmerie and Don Stone.
I really wonder about his sanity, his indecent behaviour is already known,
where will he lead himself? A nervous breakdown? It will be self inflicted.
And in the mean time Gen-Med already damaged by Hines goes even further down
the gurgler.
If only we could start afresh, and do without these two.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Maud Fitzalan
Richardson and Hines have no shame. By edging out people they expect to
become the big fish, but it will be a very small pond.
By edging out people who critise Richardson simply will mean that Richardson
is always right and become the big genealogical guru he already thinks he
is. Only gullible people will remain and be in awe of the _oh so
knowledgeable_ Mr. Richardson, and then he will sell even more books, the
books he regularly touts on gen-med.
Richardson is trying to high-jack gen-med for his selfish reasons. His
simulposting games are just to taunt Todd Farmerie and Don Stone.
I really wonder about his sanity, his indecent behaviour is already known,
where will he lead himself? A nervous breakdown? It will be self inflicted.
And in the mean time Gen-Med already damaged by Hines goes even further down
the gurgler.
If only we could start afresh, and do without these two.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Maud Fitzalan
How many worthwhile contributors have left this forum because of the
asinine rantings of those who clog up the system with venom and spite
which
has nothing to do with medieval genealogy?
Most of us haven't the stomach for a fight with them, but Peter tried, and
has now given up in disgust. It would be tragic if someone like Leo left
as
well.
Shame on you, who have driven away the ones we have relied on for
scholarly
information.
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: Peter Stewart
Date: 11/14/07 16:35:14
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Maud Fitzalan
[Crosspostings removed - the Hawaiian dirtbag tried to clean these up
with the Richardson trick of deletion & repetition after his
humiliating blunder was pointed out by Todd.]
On Nov 14, 2:51 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Hilarious!
Pogue Peter is BACK in SGM -- after insisting he was running away....
No, Basil, I am not "back in SGM" - you will have to continue puffing
your rancorous Benzedrine in another direction (and thanks to Tish for
that joke, truly hilarious for once).
Of course he never really left -- he was lying about that.
I said I stopped posting in early September, and the archive proves
that I did so.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FCt_i.12287$CN4.10812@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
My name has nothing to do with the content of messages correcting false
information.
Nonsense...
Anonymous posts with "corrections to false information" are as worthless
as
scribblings on lavatory walls -- even if they are passed through Leo, who
serves as a willing shill.
More dim misunderstanding from the loathsome creep - he thinks that
Usenet is all about personalities, and, as evidenced earlier today,
wacko pornography on the side, whereas I think SGM should be about
information and interpretation _on topic_. If all posts could be
completely anonymous, from responsible posters, the forum would be
much improved. But as it is, I intend to stay out of it.
Hines should have the courage of his own personality and convictions,
miserable as these are, and get a blog instead of making a nuisance of
himself so inappropriately here.
And note that he doesn't have the gumption to defend Richardson on any
matter of detail or substance, knowing him for the fraud he really is,
so that he sticks to deceitful generalities about "ragging" (as if
occasionally exposing the ignorance and delinquencies of this poseur
could distract Leo and myself from pursuing medieval genealogy
anyway!)
Leo's Genealogics enterprise is more influential, and less ephemeral,
than SGM discussions - I have abandoned these because they became too
tedious, beset by idiots, but I will go on corresponding with Leo and
pointing out errors or making other comments to him; and he can go on
posting snippets from my emails to SGM, or not, as he pleases. I will
not be posting further.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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
-------------------------------
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
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Maud Fitzalan
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Nov 15, 1:58 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
< His simulposting games are just to taunt Todd Farmerie and Don
Stone.
I crosspost out of convenience. That's all. To suggest otherwise is
a fantasy.
< If only we could start afresh, and do without these two.
Dream on, Leo, dream on.
< With best wishes
< Leo van de Pas
DR
On Nov 15, 1:58 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
< His simulposting games are just to taunt Todd Farmerie and Don
Stone.
I crosspost out of convenience. That's all. To suggest otherwise is
a fantasy.
< If only we could start afresh, and do without these two.
Dream on, Leo, dream on.
< With best wishes
< Leo van de Pas
DR
-
Margaret
Re: Maud Fitzalan
I really hope people do not leave because of the nastiness of some
postings. Although there is so much of it I think (or perhaps, hope,
is better) that ignoring them would eventually at least reduce the
spoiling. I think it's a mistake to respond to certain people and to
taunts and any personal insult in kind. All it does is feed whatever
delusions those people are suffering from and is seen as
encouragement. They have the same mentality as stalkers. Trying to
reason or shame leads you into a hiding to nowhere.
There is some good stuff still coming, despite everything. I've often
noticed that three or four messages can get through on a thread before
it gets picked on and starts degenerating. Once that happens I flick
through as quickly as possible and watch out for sane messages. I only
wish I was more knowledgeable and could join in more, but there we
are. Leo has the right idea - he changes the heading. That way the
filth is just ignored.
Anyway, for the reasons given by Leo and Merilyn, I do hope people
really interested in the subject don't leave.
yours
Margaret
On Nov 15, 9:58 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
postings. Although there is so much of it I think (or perhaps, hope,
is better) that ignoring them would eventually at least reduce the
spoiling. I think it's a mistake to respond to certain people and to
taunts and any personal insult in kind. All it does is feed whatever
delusions those people are suffering from and is seen as
encouragement. They have the same mentality as stalkers. Trying to
reason or shame leads you into a hiding to nowhere.
There is some good stuff still coming, despite everything. I've often
noticed that three or four messages can get through on a thread before
it gets picked on and starts degenerating. Once that happens I flick
through as quickly as possible and watch out for sane messages. I only
wish I was more knowledgeable and could join in more, but there we
are. Leo has the right idea - he changes the heading. That way the
filth is just ignored.
Anyway, for the reasons given by Leo and Merilyn, I do hope people
really interested in the subject don't leave.
yours
Margaret
On Nov 15, 9:58 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Dear Merilyn,
Richardson and Hines have no shame. By edging out people they expect to
become the big fish, but it will be a very small pond.
By edging out people who critise Richardson simply will mean that Richardson
is always right and become the big genealogical guru he already thinks he
is. Only gullible people will remain and be in awe of the _oh so
knowledgeable_ Mr. Richardson, and then he will sell even more books, the
books he regularly touts on gen-med.
Richardson is trying to high-jack gen-med for his selfish reasons. His
simulposting games are just to taunt Todd Farmerie and Don Stone.
I really wonder about his sanity, his indecent behaviour is already known,
where will he lead himself? A nervous breakdown? It will be self inflicted.
And in the mean time Gen-Med already damaged by Hines goes even further down
the gurgler.
If only we could start afresh, and do without these two.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedri...@ozemail.com.au
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Maud Fitzalan
How many worthwhile contributors have left this forum because of the
asinine rantings of those who clog up the system with venom and spite
which
has nothing to do with medieval genealogy?
Most of us haven't the stomach for a fight with them, but Peter tried, and
has now given up in disgust. It would be tragic if someone like Leo left
as
well.
Shame on you, who have driven away the ones we have relied on for
scholarly
information.
Merilyn Pedrick
-
Margaret
Re: The Richardson cesspool
On Nov 14, 7:17 am, "John Higgins" <jthigg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I can understand and agree with Peter Stewart's decision to refrain from
participation in Gen-Med/SGM, given the current state of the forum.
However, I think he is wrong, in this case, in saying that the newsgroup
"has failed to see through a new imposture of Richardson's". In fact, I
think it's clear that Richardson's errors in at least these two cases (Maud
FitzAlan and the King's Bench) were quickly exposed by Leo and Todd and
others - causing Richardson of course to simply cover his tracks and try to
remove all evidence of his errors, while denigrating those who exposed him
or noted his errors. This is certainly not the first case of this - it has
happened regularly, and Richardson has clearly earned his reputation as a
liar, a fraud, a braggart, and a bully.
I think the more critical issue here is NOT that participants don't blow the
whistle on Richardson (I've done so myself more than once), but that it does
absolutely no good. He simply continues his shoddy behavior - seeking
"collegial" behavior in others while refusing to participate in it himself -
and is supported and cheered on by his claque of sock puppets. I see no
hope in this regard, as he obviously has no shame. And Peter, the message
will NEVER "get through to these deeply stupid oafs". [And "oaf" seems
appropriate - if not too mild - for someone who refers to Leo as a "slightly
dim Dutch bumpkin".]
Perhaps this is why Michael Andrews-Redding and numerous other serious
participants have chosen to withdraw or at least greatly restrict their
contributions. In addition to Michael, the list is long: Chris Phillips,
Hap Sutliff, Rosie Bevan, Brad Verity, Tim Powys-Lybbe, Louise Staley, to
name a few. It seems that the best course of action is simply to leave this
cesspool to the likes of Richardson and his gang.
Good-bye....
-
John Brandon
Re: Maud Fitzalan
I really hope people do not leave because of the nastiness of some
postings. Although there is so much of it I think (or perhaps, hope,
is better) that ignoring them would eventually at least reduce the
spoiling. I think it's a mistake to respond to certain people and to
taunts and any personal insult in kind. All it does is feed whatever
delusions those people are suffering from and is seen as
encouragement. They have the same mentality as stalkers. Trying to
reason or shame leads you into a hiding to nowhere.
There is some good stuff still coming, despite everything. I've often
noticed that three or four messages can get through on a thread before
it gets picked on and starts degenerating. Once that happens I flick
through as quickly as possible and watch out for sane messages. I only
wish I was more knowledgeable and could join in more, but there we
are. Leo has the right idea - he changes the heading. That way the
filth is just ignored.
Anyway, for the reasons given by Leo and Merilyn, I do hope people
really interested in the subject don't leave.
yours
Margaret
Oh, don't worry, Margaret, this group is a long way from "going down
the gurgler," as the alarmist Leo v.d. Pas has predicted.
I even suspect Peter dear will be back in due course (he couldn't stay
away longer than six months the last time he stomped off in a huff).
He's just sulking because he had been loudly boasting he drove Spencer
Hines away and this was later proven to be "not the case."
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Pogue Peter Stewart is still here.
He lurks...
Goes berserk when the bile rises too far in his throat...
And posts clandestinely through his willing stooge, shill and front man --
Leo van de Pas.
Keep in mind that "Tish" is a sock puppet.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd0f32c5-9f36-448d-bf24-ee146217b4b4@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
He lurks...
Goes berserk when the bile rises too far in his throat...
And posts clandestinely through his willing stooge, shill and front man --
Leo van de Pas.
Keep in mind that "Tish" is a sock puppet.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd0f32c5-9f36-448d-bf24-ee146217b4b4@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I really hope people do not leave because of the nastiness of some
postings. Although there is so much of it I think (or perhaps, hope,
is better) that ignoring them would eventually at least reduce the
spoiling. I think it's a mistake to respond to certain people and to
taunts and any personal insult in kind. All it does is feed whatever
delusions those people are suffering from and is seen as
encouragement. They have the same mentality as stalkers. Trying to
reason or shame leads you into a hiding to nowhere.
There is some good stuff still coming, despite everything. I've often
noticed that three or four messages can get through on a thread before
it gets picked on and starts degenerating. Once that happens I flick
through as quickly as possible and watch out for sane messages. I only
wish I was more knowledgeable and could join in more, but there we
are. Leo has the right idea - he changes the heading. That way the
filth is just ignored.
Anyway, for the reasons given by Leo and Merilyn, I do hope people
really interested in the subject don't leave.
yours
Margaret
Oh, don't worry, Margaret, this group is a long way from "going down
the gurgler," as the alarmist Leo v.d. Pas has predicted.
I even suspect Peter dear will be back in due course (he couldn't stay
away longer than six months the last time he stomped off in a huff).
He's just sulking because he had been loudly boasting he drove Spencer
Hines away and this was later proven to be "not the case."
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud Fitzalan
"She's" a Composite.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:505cbb88-729a-4277-bba0-5ba2bc0be45f@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:505cbb88-729a-4277-bba0-5ba2bc0be45f@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Keep in mind that "Tish" is a sock puppet.
DSH
I don't read her postings, but I suppose she could be. Whose hand do
you think is up her metaphorical cloth backside? It might be Peter,
as she fancies herself good at Latin.
-
Gjest
Re: Maud Fitzalan
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:03:01 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
I have been called many things in the last half-century, but never a
Composite.
Still, it's nicer than some of the well-deserved epithets presently
being flung at the sexually frustrated David Spencer Hines, surely
the lowest form of "manhood" ever to crawl on this planet.
Tish
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:505cbb88-729a-4277-bba0-5ba2bc0be45f@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Keep in mind that "Tish" is a sock puppet.
DSH
I don't read her postings, but I suppose she could be. Whose hand do
you think is up her metaphorical cloth backside? It might be Peter,
as she fancies herself good at Latin.
"She's" a Composite.
I have been called many things in the last half-century, but never a
Composite.
Still, it's nicer than some of the well-deserved epithets presently
being flung at the sexually frustrated David Spencer Hines, surely
the lowest form of "manhood" ever to crawl on this planet.
Tish
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Precisely...
Not only as a shill...
But as a stooge and a front man as well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f990c45c-b3bc-4806-9b08-10ea8a63d596@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Not only as a shill...
But as a stooge and a front man as well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f990c45c-b3bc-4806-9b08-10ea8a63d596@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 1:50 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Pogue Peter Stewart is still here.
He lurks...
DSH
And he uses Leo as his shill, just as you say. The games people
play.
DR
-
Renia
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Merilyn Pedrick wrote:
Dozens. This used to be such a well-controlled forum, particularly
during Hines's long absence, during which time he succeeded in
destroying soc.history.medieval. Douglas Richardson's material could
form valuable subjects for discussion but he cannot take criticism or
accept that his historical knowledge lacks somewhat. John Brandon, too,
could be useful, but insists on sending lists which relate to no one in
particular so which are passed by. If his lists pertained to subjects
under discussion, either now or in the past, they might be of more use.
I've been away a while myself, travelling and whatnot. I had no idea
Brad Verity had distanced himself. He and Rosie Bevan, among others, are
some of the best posters we have had.
How many worthwhile contributors have left this forum because of the
asinine rantings of those who clog up the system with venom and spite which
has nothing to do with medieval genealogy?
Dozens. This used to be such a well-controlled forum, particularly
during Hines's long absence, during which time he succeeded in
destroying soc.history.medieval. Douglas Richardson's material could
form valuable subjects for discussion but he cannot take criticism or
accept that his historical knowledge lacks somewhat. John Brandon, too,
could be useful, but insists on sending lists which relate to no one in
particular so which are passed by. If his lists pertained to subjects
under discussion, either now or in the past, they might be of more use.
I've been away a while myself, travelling and whatnot. I had no idea
Brad Verity had distanced himself. He and Rosie Bevan, among others, are
some of the best posters we have had.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Maud Fitzalan
On Nov 15, 3:56 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
< Douglas Richardson's material could
This is utter balderdash, Renia. A good debate never hurt anyone.
Says me.
DR
< Douglas Richardson's material could
form valuable subjects for discussion but he cannot take criticism or
accept that his historical knowledge lacks somewhat.
This is utter balderdash, Renia. A good debate never hurt anyone.
Says me.
DR
-
Renia
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Douglas Richardson wrote:
At least we agree on the value of debate. We are all here to learn.
On Nov 15, 3:56 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson's material could
form valuable subjects for discussion but he cannot take criticism or
accept that his historical knowledge lacks somewhat.
This is utter balderdash, Renia. A good debate never hurt anyone.
Says me.
At least we agree on the value of debate. We are all here to learn.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Maud Fitzalan
On Nov 15, 5:08 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Well, some of us are. I'm not sure about Peter's shill.
DR
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:56 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson's material could
form valuable subjects for discussion but he cannot take criticism or
accept that his historical knowledge lacks somewhat.
This is utter balderdash, Renia. A good debate never hurt anyone.
Says me.
At least we agree on the value of debate. We are all here to learn.
Well, some of us are. I'm not sure about Peter's shill.
DR
-
Renia
Re: Maud Fitzalan
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I really cannot understand why some people have a go at Leo. He has
worked hard for decades to produce material of use and benefit to many.
As have you, Douglas. We've all been sgm buddies for years. Why the
bickering? It only amuses you-know-who and gives him stuff to troll with.
On Nov 15, 5:08 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:56 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson's material could
form valuable subjects for discussion but he cannot take criticism or
accept that his historical knowledge lacks somewhat.
This is utter balderdash, Renia. A good debate never hurt anyone.
Says me.
At least we agree on the value of debate. We are all here to learn.
Well, some of us are. I'm not sure about Peter's shill.
I really cannot understand why some people have a go at Leo. He has
worked hard for decades to produce material of use and benefit to many.
As have you, Douglas. We've all been sgm buddies for years. Why the
bickering? It only amuses you-know-who and gives him stuff to troll with.