PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: WAS Trolling for the troll
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Bill Arnold
PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: WAS Trolling for the troll
David11000carca: This is the fifth time you have posted this same message,
which has nothing to do with medieval genealogy. If you'd bothered to go
through the archives you'd have found that DSH is far from anonymous - full
naval career, famous father etc. With DSH having such a public online
identity your theory about trolls is blown out of the water. The board
knows much more about him than it does about it's [SIC] other troll - YOU.
BA: O really: I lost track. No, sorry to disappoint, but I am not a troll, David.
As a member of gen-medieval [ which admittedly has no moderator ]
I tried to keep it on track of genealogy but find this forum allows too many
off-topic subjects to be discussed to honor that rule anymore than you
are re-posting to me, agreed? Why, God forbid, would I want to search
the archives for DSH? If he has posted his past, so be it, and I respect
you for correcting my misunderstanding. By the way, do you believe
DSH has a Cherokee lineage? Is it not proper for a gen-man who makes
that allegation to post his sources, his proof? Is that not the substance
of medieval genealogy: documentation, sources, proof? It seems a truly
double-standard is afoot: when you all demand of Bill Arnold that he
disprove a theory of fraud, provide documentation, sources, proof,
and then you all allow your resident troll free access to post such a
Gramma's *fiction* without demanding the same of him, agreed?
I see posts off-topic more than on-topic. Is that my fault, only being
here since early September, 2007? What, pray tell, does *modern* British food
have to do with *medieval* genealogy? Well, at any rate, David, I shall
desist at attempting to rid us of someone named DSH who you and others
are happy is here at gen-medieval. You are welcome to him: I shall ponder
my Peck Pedigree and prepare a post for gen-medieval which is ON TOPIC:
PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Look for it in upcoming days!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
which has nothing to do with medieval genealogy. If you'd bothered to go
through the archives you'd have found that DSH is far from anonymous - full
naval career, famous father etc. With DSH having such a public online
identity your theory about trolls is blown out of the water. The board
knows much more about him than it does about it's [SIC] other troll - YOU.
BA: O really: I lost track. No, sorry to disappoint, but I am not a troll, David.
As a member of gen-medieval [ which admittedly has no moderator ]
I tried to keep it on track of genealogy but find this forum allows too many
off-topic subjects to be discussed to honor that rule anymore than you
are re-posting to me, agreed? Why, God forbid, would I want to search
the archives for DSH? If he has posted his past, so be it, and I respect
you for correcting my misunderstanding. By the way, do you believe
DSH has a Cherokee lineage? Is it not proper for a gen-man who makes
that allegation to post his sources, his proof? Is that not the substance
of medieval genealogy: documentation, sources, proof? It seems a truly
double-standard is afoot: when you all demand of Bill Arnold that he
disprove a theory of fraud, provide documentation, sources, proof,
and then you all allow your resident troll free access to post such a
Gramma's *fiction* without demanding the same of him, agreed?
I see posts off-topic more than on-topic. Is that my fault, only being
here since early September, 2007? What, pray tell, does *modern* British food
have to do with *medieval* genealogy? Well, at any rate, David, I shall
desist at attempting to rid us of someone named DSH who you and others
are happy is here at gen-medieval. You are welcome to him: I shall ponder
my Peck Pedigree and prepare a post for gen-medieval which is ON TOPIC:
PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Look for it in upcoming days!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: WAS Trolling for the trol
On Nov 29, 4:49 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nor does it have 'members', per se.
See above where you admit that there is nothing that can be done to
stop them.
So you know what you are talking about? So you don't reinvent the
wheel? So you don't think that in the more than a decade that he has
inflicted himself on USENET, only you have insight into his
personality? So that you see that your 'novel' approach to dealing
with him has been tried, as has everything else imaginable?
If you think that after a decade of his misbehavior, you are going to
drive him into propriety simply by demanding, DEMANDING that he answer
your question, you are sadly mistaken. You are just adding to the
noise.
Well, let's see. Since you have been here, you have adamantly told one
of the listowners that he didn't understand the organization of the
list, you have made up names for various long-time participants, you
have tried to teach us all how medieval genealogy is appropriately
done, you have introduced my supposed sexuality into the discussion.
You have alternately condemned and lionized the same person, depending
on whether you viewed him as agreeing with you or disagreeing, you
have tried to redefine everything from fact to the very nature of the
group, you have attacked the credentials of several others while
incessantly parading out yours. . . . You have been a bull in a china
shop since you arrived. Whose fault is that?
taf
As a member of gen-medieval [ which admittedly has no moderator ]
Nor does it have 'members', per se.
I tried to keep it on track of genealogy but find this forum allows too many
off-topic subjects
See above where you admit that there is nothing that can be done to
stop them.
Why, God forbid, would I want to search
the archives for DSH?
So you know what you are talking about? So you don't reinvent the
wheel? So you don't think that in the more than a decade that he has
inflicted himself on USENET, only you have insight into his
personality? So that you see that your 'novel' approach to dealing
with him has been tried, as has everything else imaginable?
If you think that after a decade of his misbehavior, you are going to
drive him into propriety simply by demanding, DEMANDING that he answer
your question, you are sadly mistaken. You are just adding to the
noise.
I see posts off-topic more than on-topic. Is that my fault, only being
here since early September, 2007?
Well, let's see. Since you have been here, you have adamantly told one
of the listowners that he didn't understand the organization of the
list, you have made up names for various long-time participants, you
have tried to teach us all how medieval genealogy is appropriately
done, you have introduced my supposed sexuality into the discussion.
You have alternately condemned and lionized the same person, depending
on whether you viewed him as agreeing with you or disagreeing, you
have tried to redefine everything from fact to the very nature of the
group, you have attacked the credentials of several others while
incessantly parading out yours. . . . You have been a bull in a china
shop since you arrived. Whose fault is that?
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Hilarious!
This should be Great Fun.
Of course, he's trolling to be spoon-fed and shown "the CORRECT descent from
Charlemagne to Arnold" ---- by nabobs here.
He's ignored everything taf, Nat, Don, Renia and I have told him -- and
continues to plow the furrow from the wrong end.
A nice genealogical image even if I do say so myself.
Modesty prevents me from being more specific.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.80.1196340601.13616.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This should be Great Fun.
Of course, he's trolling to be spoon-fed and shown "the CORRECT descent from
Charlemagne to Arnold" ---- by nabobs here.
He's ignored everything taf, Nat, Don, Renia and I have told him -- and
continues to plow the furrow from the wrong end.
A nice genealogical image even if I do say so myself.
Modesty prevents me from being more specific.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.80.1196340601.13616.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I shall ponder my Peck Pedigree and prepare a post for gen-medieval which
is ON TOPIC:
PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Look for it in upcoming days!
Bill
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Nov 29, 5:49 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're 1,000% correct, Bill. That's why I try to quote contemporary
documentation and post my source(s) after each statement I make, if at
all possible. And, I encourage everyone else to do the same. Yes,
I'm aware that it's a high standard. But if we don't quote
contemporary records and don't supply our sources, we're just copying
someone else's work or expressing our own opinions. Some of that is
just fine, by the way (Leo's database is mostly copy work, for
example, but I find it very useful at times), but the real substance
is as you say "sources, proof."
< I shall ponder my Peck Pedigree and prepare a post for gen-medieval
which is ON TOPIC:
I'd like to hear more about your "Peck pedigree." And, by all means,
please post your source(s). Your detractors will have to post their
source(s) as well, otherwise they're just expressing their opinions.
Opinions are nice, but documentation is the proof of the pudding. The
floor is all your's.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 29, 5:49 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is it not proper for a gen-man who makes that allegation to post his sources, his proof? Is that not the substance
of medieval genealogy: documentation, sources, proof?
You're 1,000% correct, Bill. That's why I try to quote contemporary
documentation and post my source(s) after each statement I make, if at
all possible. And, I encourage everyone else to do the same. Yes,
I'm aware that it's a high standard. But if we don't quote
contemporary records and don't supply our sources, we're just copying
someone else's work or expressing our own opinions. Some of that is
just fine, by the way (Leo's database is mostly copy work, for
example, but I find it very useful at times), but the real substance
is as you say "sources, proof."
< I shall ponder my Peck Pedigree and prepare a post for gen-medieval
which is ON TOPIC:
I'd like to hear more about your "Peck pedigree." And, by all means,
please post your source(s). Your detractors will have to post their
source(s) as well, otherwise they're just expressing their opinions.
Opinions are nice, but documentation is the proof of the pudding. The
floor is all your's.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
John Brandon
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
I'd like to hear more about your "Peck pedigree." And, by all means,
please post your source(s). Your detractors will have to post their
source(s) as well, otherwise they're just expressing their opinions.
Opinions are nice, but documentation is the proof of the pudding. The
floor is all your's.
Doug, I *trust* Bill Arnold's ridiculous Peck pedigree won't make an
appearance in your next book (when will that be out, by the way?).
Although perhaps some "miraculous new evidence" will emerge in the
meantime ...
Although I generally agree people should "post their proof," it's not
possible to give detailed sources in an ancestor table like I'm
constructing, especially one of this length. I can probably answer
folks' questions if they have any specific doubts..
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Nov 29, 1:00 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're expressing your opinion, John. I want to see evidence, not
your opinion. If Mr. Arnold has evidence, well and good. That will
become manifest rather quickly. If you have counter evidence, then
after Mr. Arnold has posted his evidence, be sure to provide it along
with your source(s).
So far my impression that most of the people who have posted on this
topic are guilty of posturing. They actually have no counter
evidence. If you have that counter evidence, I definitely want to see
it.
For now, the floor is Mr. Arnold's. Now Mr. Arnold, what have you
got? Please be concise, detailed, and be sure to provide your
sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Doug, I *trust* Bill Arnold's ridiculous Peck pedigree won't make an
appearance in your next book (when will that be out, by the way?).
Although perhaps some "miraculous new evidence" will emerge in the
meantime ...
You're expressing your opinion, John. I want to see evidence, not
your opinion. If Mr. Arnold has evidence, well and good. That will
become manifest rather quickly. If you have counter evidence, then
after Mr. Arnold has posted his evidence, be sure to provide it along
with your source(s).
So far my impression that most of the people who have posted on this
topic are guilty of posturing. They actually have no counter
evidence. If you have that counter evidence, I definitely want to see
it.
For now, the floor is Mr. Arnold's. Now Mr. Arnold, what have you
got? Please be concise, detailed, and be sure to provide your
sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
[Note use of singular here.]
Dear Douglas ~
If you're interested in reading about the Peck pedigree, you should
start with:
S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
(1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
Some time ago I placed this serialized article online as a pdf file at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
This includes the five pages of photographic facsimiles of the Peck
pedigree found in BL Add. MS 5524. But for further convenience I also
posted just the facsimile, in a much smaller pdf file, at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_pedigree_1620.pdf
Actually the S. Allyn Peck article does not include an exact transcript
of the material in the pedigree, but it usually easy enough to make out
even in the low-resolution scan.
If you want to get up to speed by reading past messages on this topic,
focusing on my posts will kill two birds with one stone for you. In
addition to learning about this case, you'll be able to indulge your
obsession with combing my posts for things to contradict.
Enjoy!
Very best, always,
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
I'd be happy to look at the plates of the Peck Pedigree for you. After
viewing the plates, I'll give you my opinion of them here on the
newsgroup.
[Note use of singular here.]
If I understand you correctly, these plates are "facsimiles" of the
original pedigree in the British Library, which plates were published
in 1936 as part of an article on the Peck family in the New England
Register. Is that correct?
I believe a typewritten transcript of this same pedigree was also
published in an article on the Peck family sometime in the past by the
Rhode Island Historical Society. Is that correct? Do you have a
citation for that article by any chance?
Dear Douglas ~
If you're interested in reading about the Peck pedigree, you should
start with:
S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
(1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
Some time ago I placed this serialized article online as a pdf file at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
This includes the five pages of photographic facsimiles of the Peck
pedigree found in BL Add. MS 5524. But for further convenience I also
posted just the facsimile, in a much smaller pdf file, at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_pedigree_1620.pdf
Actually the S. Allyn Peck article does not include an exact transcript
of the material in the pedigree, but it usually easy enough to make out
even in the low-resolution scan.
If you want to get up to speed by reading past messages on this topic,
focusing on my posts will kill two birds with one stone for you. In
addition to learning about this case, you'll be able to indulge your
obsession with combing my posts for things to contradict.
Enjoy!
Very best, always,
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Nov 30, 11:18 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
< In addition to learning about this case, you'll be able to indulge
your
< obsession with combing my posts for things to contradict.
<
< Very best, always,
<
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
I look for the good in people, and I usually find it.
DR
< In addition to learning about this case, you'll be able to indulge
your
< obsession with combing my posts for things to contradict.
<
< Very best, always,
<
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
I look for the good in people, and I usually find it.
DR
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dead people?
On Nov 30, 11:18 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In addition to learning about this case, you'll be able to indulge
your
obsession with combing my posts for things to contradict.
Very best, always,
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
I look for the good in people, and I usually find it.
Dead people?
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Nov 30, 12:11 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
I was speaking of my fellow posters who are alive and kicking.
DR
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:18 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In addition to learning about this case, you'll be able to indulge
your
obsession with combing my posts for things to contradict.
Very best, always,
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
I look for the good in people, and I usually find it.
Dead people?
I was speaking of my fellow posters who are alive and kicking.
DR
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Renia Simmonds waxes cynical.
DSH
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fipn8n$nea$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
DSH
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fipn8n$nea$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:18 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In addition to learning about this case, you'll be able to indulge
your obsession with combing my posts for things to contradict.
Very best, always,
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
I look for the good in people, and I usually find it.
Dead people?
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
I have to ask whether Bill Arnold has actually read this article. It's
very illuminating.
If you're interested in reading about the Peck pedigree, you should
start with:
S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
(1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
Some time ago I placed this serialized article online as a pdf file at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
I have to ask whether Bill Arnold has actually read this article. It's
very illuminating.