COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Bill Arnold

COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 06 des 2007 16:44:02

TAF: All of which deal with movie studios stealing script ideas. Given that
the writing of movie scripts is not generally considered a scholarly
discipline, nor have they been published and then taken without
attribution, it is difficult to see how these could be deemed
relevant.

BA: All of which belies the ignorance of the poster and his noisy
sycophants. There is a profound difference between an *idea* which
is *not* copyrightable and a written script or any other written document
attributable to a writer or an author. We are really talking about
*copyright law* and as I have already written it varies from nation to nation,
and because *THIS* is the information highway aka the internet, there is a
whole new branch called internet copyright law. Educate yourselves,
sycophants!

TAF: Mr. Arnold is right in one respect - the scholars in a field usually
do know when someone has been pirating the ideas of others. They know
when an author has published material that is contradicted or
unsupported by the references given for that material. They sometimes
even can tell when an author has cited references second-hand, without
actually consulting them. It is the novices with stars in their eyes
who fail to recognize the complexity of the situation, grossly
oversimplifying it with silly nicknames and acting the cheerleader
without understanding the context.

BA: Although the above comment by TAF is grossly self-serving, he
needs to get a heads-up on not only *copyright law* but *libel law*
as he is knee-deep in the doo-doo patties in a cow pasture somewhere
in America, as it has been stated. I have written I am a scholar, published,
and a journalist, published, with front-page stories and down-pages stories,
at a major worldwide tabbie which is well-known by those who know my
bio. I have written extensively in scholarly circles and have a few books
which are scholarly. I can assure gen-medievaliers that TAF has not a clue
about these *copyright* and *libel* matters, nor Petah, and a few other
sycophants of the detractors of The Lion. Fair warning, gents!

Bill

*****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 des 2007 21:24:34

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.337.1196952360.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<snip>

I have written I am a scholar, published,
and a journalist, published, with front-page stories and down-pages
stories,
at a major worldwide tabbie which is well-known by those who know my
bio. I have written extensively in scholarly circles and have a few books
which are scholarly. I can assure gen-medievaliers that TAF has not a
clue
about these *copyright* and *libel* matters, nor Petah, and a few other
sycophants of the detractors of The Lion. Fair warning, gents!

More outright lies from Arnold - so he can sue me again.

Like his fictitious "cousin" used as protection in case he made some errors
over the Magruder family....He claimed that imaginary person also teaches at
tertiary level (as if that merits automatic respect!) and had indeed
published articles on the subject, yet citations to these are apparently a
closely-guarded family secret.

Arnold keeps telling us that he is a well-known scholar and has published in
prominent journals and "tabbies" (does he use his pet cat as a billboard for
his nonsense?), but won't simply cite these - beyond one very stupid screed
on a subject he didn't understand, in a ratbag publication.

Self-published drivel has nothing to do with scholarly credentials, that in
turn have nothing to do with sgm. But if Arnold wishes to make irrelevant
claims for himself, readers are entitled to expect him to back these up with
proof. Where is it?

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage. ..

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 des 2007 21:41:03

Arnold keeps telling us that he is a well-known scholar and has
published in
prominent journals and "tabbies" (does he use his pet cat as a billboard for
his nonsense?), but won't simply cite these - beyond one very stupid screed
on a subject he didn't understand, in a ratbag publication.

Hmmm, reminds us of a certain other gent who refused to provide any
citations for his claimed lit.-crit. articles ... "trust me on
this ...."

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage. ..

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 06:43:03

On Dec 7, 7:40 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Arnold keeps telling us that he is a well-known scholar and has
published in

prominent journals and "tabbies" (does he use his pet cat as a billboard for
his nonsense?), but won't simply cite these - beyond one very stupid screed
on a subject he didn't understand, in a ratbag publication.

Hmmm, reminds us of a certain other gent who refused to provide any
citations for his claimed lit.-crit. articles ... "trust me on
this ...."

Um, no it doesn't remind "us" of any such thing - just one, who is
obsessive, poisonous and dishonest. No show without Punch...

The context if you recall was entirely different. I was accused, out
of the blue, of despising Harry Potter novels, and simply remarked
that I had reviewed some of these favourably. You then took to
incontinent demands for proof of this, that had nothing whatever to do
with you or with self-puffery in general. I declined, because it was
quite unnecessary to indulge your twisted homoerotic fantasising about
anyone who despises you.

You then continued a campaign bordering on insanity from the far side,
trying to find anyone and everyone connected with literature in
Australia having the name Peter, even suggesting that I must be one
Peter Rose, who is a well-known gay writer. In order to correct this
stupidity and stop the nonsense, I gave you a web link to Meanjin,
Australia's foremost literary journal, in the current issue of which
there happened to appear a review essay by me on Germaine Greer. But
having insisted that you must be entitled to read my work on subjects
apart from genealogy, you then declined to obtain this due to the
cost.

Brandon you are a louse and an idiot of the second-lowest class, not
quite down as far as Arnold and Hines for craziness and nuisance
value, nor yet Richardson's equal in disreputability, but closing fast
on all of three of them on both counts.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage. ..

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 des 2007 07:05:03

Brandon you are a louse and an idiot of the second-lowest class, not
quite down as far as Arnold and Hines for craziness and nuisance
value, nor yet Richardson's equal in disreputability, but closing fast
on all of three of them on both counts.

Oh, well, ... thanks. Thanks for nothing. And now we see the main
reason you've returned -- for an invigorating bout of name-calling.

There was nothing particularly homoerotic about our earlier
exchanges. I find it very odd (and telling) that you continually spin
it that way.

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage. ..

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 09:07:01

On Dec 7, 4:04 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brandon you are a louse and an idiot of the second-lowest class, not
quite down as far as Arnold and Hines for craziness and nuisance
value, nor yet Richardson's equal in disreputability, but closing fast
on all of three of them on both counts.

Oh, well, ... thanks. Thanks for nothing. And now we see the main
reason you've returned -- for an invigorating bout of name-calling.

There was nothing particularly homoerotic about our earlier
exchanges. I find it very odd (and telling) that you continually spin
it that way.

Rubbish - you were in the habit of posting links to photos of men,
telling the newsgroup how attractive or otherwise you found them, and
you were absurdly determined to find a gay man behind what you
imagined to be the pseudonym "Peter Stewart".

You may not wish the truth to be clear to readers, but it ought to be
obvious enough to anyone paying attendion to this group over time that
I don't attack people at random, or for enjoyment, and that I did not
encourage you in any way to make your ridiculous charges and searches
in the past, or prompt your first inane comment in this thread.

If you have time on your hands (yet another social outcast, I suppose,
looking for anyone to interact with online) you might busy yourself
with overdue apologies to Leslie Mahler and David Greene, and then to
everyone else you have disgusted and bored over years here.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage. ..

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 des 2007 14:25:04

Rubbish - you were in the habit of posting links to photos of men,
telling the newsgroup how attractive or otherwise you found them, and
you were absurdly determined to find a gay man behind what you
imagined to be the pseudonym "Peter Stewart".

Ridiculous. I wasn't "absurdly determined" to do anything. I really
did think you might be Peter Rose, since it seemed clear "Peter
Stewart" wasn't your real name (remember the whole deal about "Peter
_M._ Stewart is not my real name; I just use that stray initial in my
email"). Peter Rose was a literary type (perhaps not quite up to your
own "high standards," though he has probably published more than you,
and might even believe Dickens is a greater writer than JK Rowling).

I only remember posting one photo that I thought could have been you,
of some crusty looking computer support type from Melbourne (which was
suggested to me privately by Douglas)--I did not state that the photo
was attractive, and I did not I find it attractive.

So you see that it is only in your own mind that "Brandon is
determined to link me to a gay man." Your paranoia about this is very
silly ... and revealing.

with overdue apologies to Leslie Mahler and David Greene, and then to
everyone else you have disgusted and bored over years here.

Please mind your own business, you meddling fool.

D. Spencer Hines

Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 07 des 2007 15:47:10

Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Hilarious!

Watson, the game's afoot.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5035542e-bf11-4851-a838-4f08c2629daf@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Rubbish - you were in the habit of posting links to photos of men,
telling the newsgroup how attractive or otherwise you found them, and
you were absurdly determined to find a gay man behind what you
imagined to be the pseudonym "Peter Stewart".

Ridiculous. I wasn't "absurdly determined" to do anything. I really
did think you might be Peter Rose, since it seemed clear "Peter
Stewart" wasn't your real name (remember the whole deal about "Peter
_M._ Stewart is not my real name; I just use that stray initial in my
email"). Peter Rose was a literary type (perhaps not quite up to your
own "high standards," though he has probably published more than you,
and might even believe Dickens is a greater writer than JK Rowling).

I only remember posting one photo that I thought could have been you,
of some crusty looking computer support type from Melbourne (which was
suggested to me privately by Douglas)--I did not state that the photo
was attractive, and I did not I find it attractive.

So you see that it is only in your own mind that "Brandon is
determined to link me to a gay man." Your paranoia about this is very
silly ... and revealing.

with overdue apologies to Leslie Mahler and David Greene, and then to
everyone else you have disgusted and bored over years here.

Please mind your own business, you meddling fool.

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 des 2007 16:00:05

Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Hilarious!

Watson, the game's afoot.

There's something a little fishy about it. Despite his claim that his
name is "Peter Stewart," not "Peter M. Stewart" as his email address
would lead one to believe, he actually signed an early posting "Peter
M. Stewart."

When this was brought to his attention, he claimed "he made a mistake"
when he glanced at his email addy while typing his name.

What bull.

It seems quite possible his name is neither "Peter Stewart" nor "Peter
M. Stewrat," but something else entirely.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 07 des 2007 16:05:00

He is certainly duplicitous, dissembling and disingenuous to the max.

Fleeing his creditors, family and former partners?

"Stewrat" -- I like the sound of that one -- it certainly fits -- a rat in a
stew.

Fraudulent, Foul & Disgusting on all counts.

DSH

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33b6eb32-5720-4723-97ed-d1779d78a8a9@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Hilarious!

Watson, the game's afoot.

There's something a little fishy about it. Despite his claim that his
name is "Peter Stewart," not "Peter M. Stewart" as his email address
would lead one to believe, he actually signed an early posting "Peter
M. Stewart."

When this was brought to his attention, he claimed "he made a mistake"
when he glanced at his email addy while typing his name.

What bull.

It seems quite possible his name is neither "Peter Stewart" nor "Peter
M. Stewrat," but something else entirely.

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 21:39:44

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33b6eb32-5720-4723-97ed-d1779d78a8a9@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Hilarious!

Watson, the game's afoot.

There's something a little fishy about it. Despite his claim that his
name is "Peter Stewart," not "Peter M. Stewart" as his email address
would lead one to believe, he actually signed an early posting "Peter
M. Stewart."

When this was brought to his attention, he claimed "he made a mistake"
when he glanced at his email addy while typing his name.

What bull.

It seems quite possible his name is neither "Peter Stewart" nor "Peter
M. Stewrat," but something else entirely.

This is of course a distortion of what I said, to suit Brandon's present
purpose of returning to the subject that so obsessed him at the time, and
evidently still does.

If an email address has to reflect a person's real, full name then we must
assume that Brandon has officially changed his to "starbuck95".

When registering an email address, several attempts might have to be made to
elaborate the main elements before an available string is found - especially
with names that are relatively frequent like Peter and Stewart.

My private email address has two other letters - but no "M" - in it.

There could be nothing funny or interesting or relevant in what my name is.
This is another example of Brandon's inability, that he shares with Hines
and Richardson, to separate personalities from the subject matter at hand.

The reason they were agog when I referred in passing once to my publishing
literary criticism is simply that I had participated in sgm for years
beforehand without ever mentioning this. It has no bearing on what I write
about medieval genealogy. Nor does my email address, or my "real" name, or
how many given names I might happen to have, or what their initial letters
might be.

Bradon and Hines are showing us how desperate they are for someone to
converse with, on any pretext at all, and how extremely silly they are in
seizing on this one.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 21:57:51

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5035542e-bf11-4851-a838-4f08c2629daf@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Rubbish - you were in the habit of posting links to photos of men,
telling the newsgroup how attractive or otherwise you found them, and
you were absurdly determined to find a gay man behind what you
imagined to be the pseudonym "Peter Stewart".

Ridiculous. I wasn't "absurdly determined" to do anything. I really
did think you might be Peter Rose, since it seemed clear "Peter
Stewart" wasn't your real name (remember the whole deal about "Peter
_M._ Stewart is not my real name; I just use that stray initial in my
email"). Peter Rose was a literary type (perhaps not quite up to your
own "high standards," though he has probably published more than you,
and might even believe Dickens is a greater writer than JK Rowling).

Plainly it was from your absurd determination that you "really did think" -
on NO evidence whatsoever apart from the common first name and that both of
us live in Australia and have published writing - that I might be Peter
Rose.

I have never said what my "real name" is or isn't, but only that this is
irrelevant to sgm.

And I don't compare JK Rowling to Dickens. They are both writers who
interest and delight children, and tend to be overrated or underrated by
adults on that basis alone, which is a nonsense. Neither of them is a
"great" writer in my view, but Dickens wrote far superior movie scenarios.

I only remember posting one photo that I thought could have been you,
of some crusty looking computer support type from Melbourne (which was
suggested to me privately by Douglas)--I did not state that the photo
was attractive, and I did not I find it attractive.

I might have guessed that Richardson was involved. NB I didn't say you
posted photos of ME, but of MEN. You posted links to several, of different
people and in threads that had noting to do with me, remarking on their
looks. My point was about your motivations for pressing on your own
psychological bruises, not just in relation to me but apparently with all
males who ignore or despise you (including, as far as I dimly recall,
purported photos of Leslie Mahler, Todd Farmerie, and someone in your own
family).

So you see that it is only in your own mind that "Brandon is
determined to link me to a gay man." Your paranoia about this is very
silly ... and revealing.

You are at it again now, trying by misplaced denials and twisted suggestions
to string out the tedious discussion of your psycho-sexual hang-ups
projected onto someone else.

with overdue apologies to Leslie Mahler and David Greene, and then to
everyone else you have disgusted and bored over years here.

Please mind your own business, you meddling fool.

Whatever is posted to sgm becomes public business, under public scrutiny. If
you want to insult people in private, you have only to click on different
buttons - something that any idiot with a computer can surely manage.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 des 2007 22:28:02

beforehand without ever mentioning this. It has no bearing on what I write
about medieval genealogy. Nor does my email address, or my "real" name, or
how many given names I might happen to have, or what their initial letters
might be.

However, when you berate others at extreme length, frequently
repeating their real names (Brandon, Hines, and Richardson), it *does*
seem rather cheap that you do so from behind a pseudonym.

But ... do as you like; I'm not going to continue arguing with you on
this topic.

John Brandon

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage. ..

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 des 2007 22:38:02

I might have guessed that Richardson was involved. NB I didn't say you
posted photos of ME, but of MEN. You posted links to several, of different
people and in threads that had noting to do with me, remarking on their
looks. My point was about your motivations for pressing on your own
psychological bruises, not just in relation to me but apparently with all
males who ignore or despise you (including, as far as I dimly recall,
purported photos of Leslie Mahler, Todd Farmerie, and someone in your own
family).

I really don't see how my posting photos of other men (of some of whom
I was complimentary) is a manifestation of my "absurd determination"
to link YOU to somebody "supposedly gay."

How do you actaully know that Leslie, Todd, Horace Merrill (my first-
cousin-four-times-removed), and William Cox (my great-great-great
grandfather) actually despise and ignore me? You are overreaching a
bit (just a bit) in your "penetrating psychological anal-yses" ...

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 22:41:37

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41856996-1701-4a09-85e2-f66f54fa95cf@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
beforehand without ever mentioning this. It has no bearing on what I
write
about medieval genealogy. Nor does my email address, or my "real" name,
or
how many given names I might happen to have, or what their initial
letters
might be.

However, when you berate others at extreme length, frequently
repeating their real names (Brandon, Hines, and Richardson), it *does*
seem rather cheap that you do so from behind a pseudonym.

But ... do as you like; I'm not going to continue arguing with you on
this topic.

Ho hum - Brandon has decided, just because he wants to talk about it again,
to assert with NO evidence that Peter Stewart is a "pseudonym", when he has
been shown proof that I publish under this name.

If he imagines that I am going to post a scan of my driver's license of tax
return, he is even sillier than I supposed.

For those with functioning minds, it hardly needs to be pointed out that the
newsgroup has no way of knowing whether Brandon, Richardson and Hines are
real names any more than

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 22:54:17

O the tedium...

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:989f293d-50e3-44ad-9736-83ef20dd7709@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
I might have guessed that Richardson was involved. NB I didn't say you
posted photos of ME, but of MEN. You posted links to several, of
different
people and in threads that had noting to do with me, remarking on their
looks. My point was about your motivations for pressing on your own
psychological bruises, not just in relation to me but apparently with all
males who ignore or despise you (including, as far as I dimly recall,
purported photos of Leslie Mahler, Todd Farmerie, and someone in your own
family).

I really don't see how my posting photos of other men (of some of whom
I was complimentary) is a manifestation of my "absurd determination"
to link YOU to somebody "supposedly gay."

Can you put 2 and 2 together and come up with a result, or is that beyond
your conceptual scope?

You have clearly and consistently manifested here, in public: (1) a fixation
on me and my identity; (2) a fixation on male persons; (3) a fixation on
gayness in people you know nothing about; and (4) a poisonous habit of
projecting these hang-ups onto others.

How do you actaully know that Leslie, Todd, Horace Merrill (my first-
cousin-four-times-removed), and William Cox (my great-great-great
grandfather) actually despise and ignore me? You are overreaching a
bit (just a bit) in your "penetrating psychological anal-yses" ...

The pretext of your postings about Todd and Leslie was a vapid revenge for
their not coddling you in the newsgroup, and as far as I recall you remarked
on the aloof handsomeness of your relative, maybe not in those words, though
I was thinking about the removed cousin (lucky him) rather than the
ancestor.

The sorry pattern is not in doubt, at least for anyone else, even if you
don't wish to see it.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 des 2007 23:06:02

Ho hum - Brandon has decided, just because he wants to talk about it again,
to assert with NO evidence that Peter Stewart is a "pseudonym", when he has
been shown proof that I publish under this name.

Oh, the little Germaine Greer piece? How do we know that is you?
"Peter Stewart" is a common enough name, I suppose.

Perhaps that is the only thing he's gotten published, and he's ashamed
to have his meager production known.

But really, the search for lit-crit articles was only begun because
you claimed you had not published anything _genealogical_, which was
what I was really after. Failing that, the lit-crit stuff would have
sufficed. Now, it seems, there's precious little of either (some
grand secret manuscript about the Carolingians has been mentioned, of
course, but isn't that sort of like the "friends who support one in
private emails"?)

For those with functioning minds, it hardly needs to be pointed out that the
newsgroup has no way of knowing whether Brandon, Richardson and Hines are
real names any more than peter Stewart

On the contrary, many here have seen our names (at least those of
Brandon and Richardson) on genealogical articles in TAG, NEHGR, etc.
Can they say the same for Peter [_] [_] Stewrat?

John Brandon

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage. ..

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 des 2007 23:11:02

The pretext of your postings about Todd and Leslie was a vapid revenge for
their not coddling you in the newsgroup, and as far as I recall you remarked
on the aloof handsomeness of your relative, maybe not in those words, though
I was thinking about the removed cousin (lucky him) rather than the
ancestor.

You in fact recall *incorrectly*, as I merely said that my great-
grandfather, his first cousin, resembled him somewhat.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 07 des 2007 23:27:25

Of course...

DSH

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41856996-1701-4a09-85e2-f66f54fa95cf@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

However, when you berate others at extreme length, frequently
repeating their real names (Brandon, Hines, and Richardson), it *does*
seem rather cheap that you do so from behind a pseudonym.

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 23:33:48

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d15d6903-7daf-443c-8617-91fbd833f8fe@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Ho hum - Brandon has decided, just because he wants to talk about it
again,
to assert with NO evidence that Peter Stewart is a "pseudonym", when he
has
been shown proof that I publish under this name.

Oh, the little Germaine Greer piece? How do we know that is you?
"Peter Stewart" is a common enough name, I suppose.

You didn't obtain the issue of 'Meanjin' so how do you know the length of
the essay on Germaine Greer?

Perhaps that is the only thing he's gotten published, and he's ashamed
to have his meager production known.

You imagine the editor of 'Menajin' is likely to commission an essay on such
a figure as Germaine Greer from any passing pedestrian?

But really, the search for lit-crit articles was only begun because
you claimed you had not published anything _genealogical_, which was
what I was really after.

So having been told that I had not published anything on genealogy, you
decided to search for these chimerical articles on the Internet? And you are
not fixated?

Failing that, the lit-crit stuff would have
sufficed.

But when you were led to it you baulked because you would have to pay for it
and never thought that was part of the deal with published writing....

Now, it seems, there's precious little of either

You mean that _you_ have been able to track down - but then you couldn't
find the Greer essay for yourself, that was published with a cover notice in
the current issue of Australia's most famous literary journal....while you
were scouring the web for Australian literary critics named Peter and coming
up with someone else....

(some grand secret manuscript about the Carolingians has been mentioned,
of course, but isn't that sort of like the "friends who support one in
private emails"?)

Not mentioned by me as grand, or secret, or a manuscript. I have copious
material, sources and notes, on a large number of families apart from this
one. And for that matter several sgm participants have seen my work in
progress on the Carolingians. I have never made any claims about this work,
or alleged support for it, except to state that it exists.

For those with functioning minds, it hardly needs to be pointed out that
the
newsgroup has no way of knowing whether Brandon, Richardson and Hines are
real names any more than peter Stewart

On the contrary, many here have seen our names (at least those of
Brandon and Richardson) on genealogical articles in TAG, NEHGR, etc.
Can they say the same for Peter [_] [_] Stewrat?

How juveline, misnaming someone so witlessly - just like Arnold.

You stated above that you had seen the name Peter Stewart as author of a
literary article in 'Meanjin', now you go back to insinuating falsely that
you have never seen this. I said from the start that I have not published on
genealogy, and I have said often enough where my interests in this field
lie, that is not with US immigrants, so for those reasons quite obviously
you won't find the name in TAG, NEHGR, etc. But if I did shoose to submit an
article under the name Peter Stewart, and the editor chose to publish it,
what on earth could that prove about the "reality" or otherwise of the name?
An author is entitled to call himself or herself whatever is preferred, at
any time, barring obscenity or misrepresentation, just as any citizen can
change his or her name at whim, within similar limitations.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 23:34:40

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc6e7bcd-27ed-45d1-95d7-e5229f005582@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The pretext of your postings about Todd and Leslie was a vapid revenge
for
their not coddling you in the newsgroup, and as far as I recall you
remarked
on the aloof handsomeness of your relative, maybe not in those words,
though
I was thinking about the removed cousin (lucky him) rather than the
ancestor.

You in fact recall *incorrectly*, as I merely said that my great-
grandfather, his first cousin, resembled him somewhat.

No, you said more than this. Prove me wrong if you can...

Peter Stewart

Doug McDonald

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 07 des 2007 23:50:39

Peter Stewart wrote:

For those with functioning minds, it hardly needs to be pointed out that the
newsgroup has no way of knowing whether Brandon, Richardson and Hines are
real names any more than


But for Richardson, testing would be easy for some people, i.e.
those living in Salt Lake City:

just find the real live Douglas Richardson and ASK HIM if the
posts are his.

Doug McDonald

John Brandon

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage. ..

Legg inn av John Brandon » 08 des 2007 00:08:04

You in fact recall *incorrectly*, as I merely said that my great-
grandfather, his first cousin, resembled him somewhat.

No, you said more than this. Prove me wrong if you can...

Peter Stewart

No, the onus is on your anus to prove what you claim.

If you are thinking of my statement about someone having "intense
eyes," that was about a female ancestor (which also sounds bad, now I
come to think of it).

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 00:12:17

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:fjcj36$svq$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Peter Stewart wrote:

For those with functioning minds, it hardly needs to be pointed out that
the newsgroup has no way of knowing whether Brandon, Richardson and Hines
are real names any more than


But for Richardson, testing would be easy for some people, i.e.
those living in Salt Lake City:

just find the real live Douglas Richardson and ASK HIM if the
posts are his.

As of course a person in Melbourne could do with Peter Stewart - so?

Some present (& former) sgm participants have met me. Being accessible in
one place rather than another is immaterial.

But my point is that the contents of any post to a USENET group must stand
on their own merits. Anonymity would be fine, even preferable if there were
some kind of identifier other than a changeable email address or a personal
name to indicate who had said what.

Nothing could matter less than people's activities in their lives apart from
USENET, that for most of us (unlike Hines when he isn't into shady porn) is
most of their lives.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 00:21:14

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f231d1c6-81bf-4d00-a1fc-07f899225660@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You in fact recall *incorrectly*, as I merely said that my great-
grandfather, his first cousin, resembled him somewhat.

No, you said more than this. Prove me wrong if you can...

Peter Stewart

No, the onus is on your anus to prove what you claim.

If you are thinking of my statement about someone having "intense
eyes," that was about a female ancestor (which also sounds bad, now I
come to think of it).

Um, bad yes but not quite as you misrepresent - you said she (a
great-grandmother, I vaguely think) was handsome and you were fascinated by
her eyes that were inherited by a male ancestor, who in turn resembled
another male relative.

Others besides me have remarked on your fixation with the personal
attractiveness of men, and your incenstuous interest in dead forebears.

You have tried to make out that various sgm interlocutors must be gay men,
for no apparent reason. At the same time you have tried to demonise at least
one female interlocutors as old and ugly, equally for no reason beyond your
own immature attitude to her sex.

2 + 2 = damaged soul trying to strike out on sensitive points. Most
unappealing behaviour, that you should stop for your own good.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage. ..

Legg inn av John Brandon » 08 des 2007 00:58:03

Um, bad yes but not quite as you misrepresent - you said she (a
great-grandmother, I vaguely think) was handsome and you were fascinated by
her eyes that were inherited by a male ancestor, who in turn resembled
another male relative.

You've got it ridiculously wrong--two separate families and were
involved (upon which I commented at two separate times) which you've
conflated. But I shan't bother to straighten you out any further than
that --

Merely noting that someone inherited their intense eyes (I've never
used the word "handsome" to describe the eyes of a person of either
gender) needn't (and doesn't, in this case) indicate any such
incestuous attraction as you impute. But apparently you're _damned_
if you're not going to PROVE your point -- more of your tacky and
ubiquitous principle of "if you slander strenously enough, something
will stick" ...

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 02:00:41

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ced8598-b591-4c75-b8b1-3c219c8eeb0a@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Um, bad yes but not quite as you misrepresent - you said she (a
great-grandmother, I vaguely think) was handsome and you were fascinated
by
her eyes that were inherited by a male ancestor, who in turn resembled
another male relative.

You've got it ridiculously wrong--two separate families and were
involved (upon which I commented at two separate times) which you've
conflated. But I shan't bother to straighten you out any further than
that --

Merely noting that someone inherited their intense eyes (I've never
used the word "handsome" to describe the eyes of a person of either
gender) needn't (and doesn't, in this case) indicate any such
incestuous attraction as you impute. But apparently you're _damned_
if you're not going to PROVE your point -- more of your tacky and
ubiquitous principle of "if you slander strenously enough, something
will stick" ...

Brandon's comprehension skills are as low as his honesty - paraphrasing a
claim that someone is handsome and has fascinating eyes does not equate to
saying that person has handsome eyes.

The complications of his family are of no interest to me, whether my memory
on this tangential point was right or wrong.

He can't deflect attention by this bogus means from his posturings on
gayness and his blatherings about the personal appearance of various men
with whom he was fascinated, momentarily, chronically, incestuously or
ignorantly.

That is on the record. As is his infantile abuse of females from his twisted
perception of looks and age, when it is really the gender that frightens
him.

He has been advised before, and not just by me, to seek therapy and spare us
his difficulties with life, his feeble humour and his pathetic attempts at
self-defense, but still he persists...

Peter Stewart

Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:41:47

John Brandon wrote:

Rubbish - you were in the habit of posting links to photos of men,
telling the newsgroup how attractive or otherwise you found them, and
you were absurdly determined to find a gay man behind what you
imagined to be the pseudonym "Peter Stewart".


Ridiculous.

Coo, this newsgroup is much more fun and licentious than shm has been
for ages! Keep it up lads.

If you can.

Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:48:43

John Brandon wrote:

The pretext of your postings about Todd and Leslie was a vapid revenge for
their not coddling you in the newsgroup, and as far as I recall you remarked
on the aloof handsomeness of your relative, maybe not in those words, though
I was thinking about the removed cousin (lucky him) rather than the
ancestor.


You in fact recall *incorrectly*, as I merely said that my great-
grandfather, his first cousin, resembled him somewhat.

I'm sorry. I've been out with some colleagues of my husband and I've
come home and I don't know what the hell you are all arguing about. You
sound like a bunch of fishwives!! You're worse than we gals! :-) :-)

Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:49:23

John Brandon wrote:

No, the onus is on your anus to prove what you claim.

Very good. I like it.

Much better than your continual lists of useless books.

Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:50:55

Peter Stewart wrote:

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f231d1c6-81bf-4d00-a1fc-07f899225660@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

You in fact recall *incorrectly*, as I merely said that my great-
grandfather, his first cousin, resembled him somewhat.

No, you said more than this. Prove me wrong if you can...

Peter Stewart

No, the onus is on your anus to prove what you claim.

If you are thinking of my statement about someone having "intense
eyes," that was about a female ancestor (which also sounds bad, now I
come to think of it).


Um, bad yes but not quite as you misrepresent - you said she (a
great-grandmother, I vaguely think) was handsome and you were fascinated by
her eyes that were inherited by a male ancestor, who in turn resembled
another male relative.


Peter, Peter, Peter. Go back to your sojourn and lovely sunsets. Come
back when you've settled down.

Who cares about our handsome great-grandmothers? This is taking
genealogy to its wildest extreme. And, it's nothing to do with medieval
genealogy.

Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:52:25

Peter Stewart wrote:

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ced8598-b591-4c75-b8b1-3c219c8eeb0a@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Um, bad yes but not quite as you misrepresent - you said she (a
great-grandmother, I vaguely think) was handsome and you were fascinated
by
her eyes that were inherited by a male ancestor, who in turn resembled
another male relative.

You've got it ridiculously wrong--two separate families and were
involved (upon which I commented at two separate times) which you've
conflated. But I shan't bother to straighten you out any further than
that --

Merely noting that someone inherited their intense eyes (I've never
used the word "handsome" to describe the eyes of a person of either
gender) needn't (and doesn't, in this case) indicate any such
incestuous attraction as you impute. But apparently you're _damned_
if you're not going to PROVE your point -- more of your tacky and
ubiquitous principle of "if you slander strenously enough, something
will stick" ...


Brandon's comprehension skills are as low as his honesty - paraphrasing a
claim that someone is handsome and has fascinating eyes does not equate to
saying that person has handsome eyes.

The complications of his family are of no interest to me, whether my memory
on this tangential point was right or wrong.

He can't deflect attention by this bogus means from his posturings on
gayness and his blatherings about the personal appearance of various men
with whom he was fascinated, momentarily, chronically, incestuously or
ignorantly.

That is on the record. As is his infantile abuse of females from his twisted
perception of looks and age, when it is really the gender that frightens
him.

He has been advised before, and not just by me, to seek therapy and spare us
his difficulties with life, his feeble humour and his pathetic attempts at
self-defense, but still he persists...

That's the trouble with journalists. They are fascinated by their own
fixation with words. They think everyone reads every valuable morsel
they tap out.

They don't. I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what
it's about.

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 03:02:24

I don't know why you are running interference for Brandon, Renia, but having
salivated before us all just a few minutes ago with

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcsoo$jiv$2@mouse.otenet.gr...

Coo, this newsgroup is much more fun and licentious than shm has been for
ages! Keep it up lads.

If you can.

you can't now expect us to believe you when you say

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjctcm$jl0$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's about.

If you are having trouble with loneliness and idelness in Greece, I'm sure
you could find a hapless tourist to bore and confuse with your silly
one-liners.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 des 2007 03:03:57

Hilarious!

"Peter Stewart"

Just a slippin' and a sliding.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:gTj6j.21367$CN4.18043@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

But if I did shoose to submit an article under the name Peter Stewart, and
the editor chose to publish it, what on earth could that prove about the
"reality" or otherwise of the name? An author is entitled to call himself
or herself whatever is preferred, at any time, barring obscenity or
misrepresentation, just as any citizen can change his or her name at whim,
within similar limitations.

Peter Stewart

Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 03:04:38

Peter Stewart wrote:

I don't know why you are running interference for Brandon, Renia, but having
salivated before us all just a few minutes ago with

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcsoo$jiv$2@mouse.otenet.gr...


Coo, this newsgroup is much more fun and licentious than shm has been for
ages! Keep it up lads.

If you can.


you can't now expect us to believe you when you say

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjctcm$jl0$4@mouse.otenet.gr...


I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's about.


If you are having trouble with loneliness and idelness in Greece, I'm sure
you could find a hapless tourist to bore and confuse with your silly
one-liners.

Peter Stewart

You missed out this bit:


That's the trouble with journalists. They are fascinated by their own
fixation with words. They think everyone reads every valuable morsel
they tap out.

Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 03:36:46

Um, no Renia I didn't miss anything.

You claimed "I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's
about". Obviously this is a falsehood - no-one can have a clue what any
writing is about if they haven't read a word of it, but you had obviously
read through all of my post. It was about the same subject that you had
called licentious and fun moments earlier.

Left to your own devices, your endless banterings on USENET are every bit as
dull and backward as the witterings of DS Hines, though without the same
toxicity and (usually) without the deceit.

You were evidently a sub-editor because that is where your talents were best
employed. Nothing wrong with that, but if you now want to practice
journalism USENET is not the best forum to try it in. Get a blog, and see
how many actually want to read your commentary. That is what spouters and
wisecrackers who have the courage of their own convictions tend to do.

Here, going by your occasional willingness and flashes of logic, you have
the capacity to engage in medieval genealogy to some proper, useful purpose,
I assume (though I didn't read your posts on the Peck family because of
ennui with the subject, not with your findings & views on it).

Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcu3j$jr0$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Peter Stewart wrote:

I don't know why you are running interference for Brandon, Renia, but
having salivated before us all just a few minutes ago with

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcsoo$jiv$2@mouse.otenet.gr...


Coo, this newsgroup is much more fun and licentious than shm has been for
ages! Keep it up lads.

If you can.


you can't now expect us to believe you when you say

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjctcm$jl0$4@mouse.otenet.gr...


I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's about.


If you are having trouble with loneliness and idelness in Greece, I'm
sure you could find a hapless tourist to bore and confuse with your silly
one-liners.

Peter Stewart

You missed out this bit:


That's the trouble with journalists. They are fascinated by their own
fixation with words. They think everyone reads every valuable morsel they
tap out.

Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 03:44:37

Peter Stewart wrote:

Um, no Renia I didn't miss anything.

You claimed "I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's
about". Obviously this is a falsehood - no-one can have a clue what any
writing is about if they haven't read a word of it, but you had obviously
read through all of my post. It was about the same subject that you had
called licentious and fun moments earlier.

No, I didn't read it, and I still haven't!

I wasn't saying your particular posts were licentious fun, I was saying
the whole ridiculous debate about your great-grandmother and the other
stuff was fun.

Because it was so silly.

Left to your own devices, your endless banterings on USENET are every bit as
dull and backward as the witterings of DS Hines, though without the same
toxicity and (usually) without the deceit.

You were evidently a sub-editor because that is where your talents were best
employed. Nothing wrong with that, but if you now want to practice
journalism USENET is not the best forum to try it in. Get a blog, and see
how many actually want to read your commentary. That is what spouters and
wisecrackers who have the courage of their own convictions tend to do.

Ooh! You're such a biatch!


Here, going by your occasional willingness and flashes of logic, you have
the capacity to engage in medieval genealogy to some proper, useful purpose,
I assume (though I didn't read your posts on the Peck family because of
ennui with the subject, not with your findings & views on it).

Peter, you talk sense most of the time and you're a good writer.

But you waste your talents on JB, because he brings out the biatch in
you. A shame.


Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcu3j$jr0$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Peter Stewart wrote:


I don't know why you are running interference for Brandon, Renia, but
having salivated before us all just a few minutes ago with

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcsoo$jiv$2@mouse.otenet.gr...



Coo, this newsgroup is much more fun and licentious than shm has been for
ages! Keep it up lads.

If you can.


you can't now expect us to believe you when you say

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjctcm$jl0$4@mouse.otenet.gr...



I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's about.


If you are having trouble with loneliness and idelness in Greece, I'm
sure you could find a hapless tourist to bore and confuse with your silly
one-liners.

Peter Stewart

You missed out this bit:


That's the trouble with journalists. They are fascinated by their own
fixation with words. They think everyone reads every valuable morsel they
tap out.



Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 03:44:37

Peter Stewart wrote:

Um, no Renia I didn't miss anything.

You claimed "I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's
about". Obviously this is a falsehood - no-one can have a clue what any
writing is about if they haven't read a word of it, but you had obviously
read through all of my post. It was about the same subject that you had
called licentious and fun moments earlier.

No, I didn't read it, and I still haven't!

I wasn't saying your particular posts were licentious fun, I was saying
the whole ridiculous debate about your great-grandmother and the other
stuff was fun.

Because it was so silly.

Left to your own devices, your endless banterings on USENET are every bit as
dull and backward as the witterings of DS Hines, though without the same
toxicity and (usually) without the deceit.

You were evidently a sub-editor because that is where your talents were best
employed. Nothing wrong with that, but if you now want to practice
journalism USENET is not the best forum to try it in. Get a blog, and see
how many actually want to read your commentary. That is what spouters and
wisecrackers who have the courage of their own convictions tend to do.

Ooh! You're such a biatch!


Here, going by your occasional willingness and flashes of logic, you have
the capacity to engage in medieval genealogy to some proper, useful purpose,
I assume (though I didn't read your posts on the Peck family because of
ennui with the subject, not with your findings & views on it).

Peter, you talk sense most of the time and you're a good writer.

But you waste your talents on JB, because he brings out the biatch in
you. A shame.


Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcu3j$jr0$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Peter Stewart wrote:


I don't know why you are running interference for Brandon, Renia, but
having salivated before us all just a few minutes ago with

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcsoo$jiv$2@mouse.otenet.gr...



Coo, this newsgroup is much more fun and licentious than shm has been for
ages! Keep it up lads.

If you can.


you can't now expect us to believe you when you say

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjctcm$jl0$4@mouse.otenet.gr...



I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's about.


If you are having trouble with loneliness and idelness in Greece, I'm
sure you could find a hapless tourist to bore and confuse with your silly
one-liners.

Peter Stewart

You missed out this bit:


That's the trouble with journalists. They are fascinated by their own
fixation with words. They think everyone reads every valuable morsel they
tap out.



Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 03:44:37

Peter Stewart wrote:

Um, no Renia I didn't miss anything.

You claimed "I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's
about". Obviously this is a falsehood - no-one can have a clue what any
writing is about if they haven't read a word of it, but you had obviously
read through all of my post. It was about the same subject that you had
called licentious and fun moments earlier.

No, I didn't read it, and I still haven't!

I wasn't saying your particular posts were licentious fun, I was saying
the whole ridiculous debate about your great-grandmother and the other
stuff was fun.

Because it was so silly.

Left to your own devices, your endless banterings on USENET are every bit as
dull and backward as the witterings of DS Hines, though without the same
toxicity and (usually) without the deceit.

You were evidently a sub-editor because that is where your talents were best
employed. Nothing wrong with that, but if you now want to practice
journalism USENET is not the best forum to try it in. Get a blog, and see
how many actually want to read your commentary. That is what spouters and
wisecrackers who have the courage of their own convictions tend to do.

Ooh! You're such a biatch!


Here, going by your occasional willingness and flashes of logic, you have
the capacity to engage in medieval genealogy to some proper, useful purpose,
I assume (though I didn't read your posts on the Peck family because of
ennui with the subject, not with your findings & views on it).

Peter, you talk sense most of the time and you're a good writer.

But you waste your talents on JB, because he brings out the biatch in
you. A shame.


Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcu3j$jr0$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Peter Stewart wrote:


I don't know why you are running interference for Brandon, Renia, but
having salivated before us all just a few minutes ago with

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcsoo$jiv$2@mouse.otenet.gr...



Coo, this newsgroup is much more fun and licentious than shm has been for
ages! Keep it up lads.

If you can.


you can't now expect us to believe you when you say

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjctcm$jl0$4@mouse.otenet.gr...



I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's about.


If you are having trouble with loneliness and idelness in Greece, I'm
sure you could find a hapless tourist to bore and confuse with your silly
one-liners.

Peter Stewart

You missed out this bit:


That's the trouble with journalists. They are fascinated by their own
fixation with words. They think everyone reads every valuable morsel they
tap out.



Renia

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée pare ntage...

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 03:44:37

Peter Stewart wrote:

Um, no Renia I didn't miss anything.

You claimed "I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's
about". Obviously this is a falsehood - no-one can have a clue what any
writing is about if they haven't read a word of it, but you had obviously
read through all of my post. It was about the same subject that you had
called licentious and fun moments earlier.

No, I didn't read it, and I still haven't!

I wasn't saying your particular posts were licentious fun, I was saying
the whole ridiculous debate about your great-grandmother and the other
stuff was fun.

Because it was so silly.

Left to your own devices, your endless banterings on USENET are every bit as
dull and backward as the witterings of DS Hines, though without the same
toxicity and (usually) without the deceit.

You were evidently a sub-editor because that is where your talents were best
employed. Nothing wrong with that, but if you now want to practice
journalism USENET is not the best forum to try it in. Get a blog, and see
how many actually want to read your commentary. That is what spouters and
wisecrackers who have the courage of their own convictions tend to do.

Ooh! You're such a biatch!


Here, going by your occasional willingness and flashes of logic, you have
the capacity to engage in medieval genealogy to some proper, useful purpose,
I assume (though I didn't read your posts on the Peck family because of
ennui with the subject, not with your findings & views on it).

Peter, you talk sense most of the time and you're a good writer.

But you waste your talents on JB, because he brings out the biatch in
you. A shame.


Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcu3j$jr0$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Peter Stewart wrote:


I don't know why you are running interference for Brandon, Renia, but
having salivated before us all just a few minutes ago with

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcsoo$jiv$2@mouse.otenet.gr...



Coo, this newsgroup is much more fun and licentious than shm has been for
ages! Keep it up lads.

If you can.


you can't now expect us to believe you when you say

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjctcm$jl0$4@mouse.otenet.gr...



I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what it's about.


If you are having trouble with loneliness and idelness in Greece, I'm
sure you could find a hapless tourist to bore and confuse with your silly
one-liners.

Peter Stewart

You missed out this bit:


That's the trouble with journalists. They are fascinated by their own
fixation with words. They think everyone reads every valuable morsel they
tap out.



Peter Stewart

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longespée parentage...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 03:57:31

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjd0ei$kcc$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Peter Stewart wrote:

Um, no Renia I didn't miss anything.

You claimed "I haven't read a word of the above and haven't a clue what
it's about". Obviously this is a falsehood - no-one can have a clue what
any writing is about if they haven't read a word of it, but you had
obviously read through all of my post. It was about the same subject that
you had called licentious and fun moments earlier.

No, I didn't read it, and I still haven't!

I wasn't saying your particular posts were licentious fun, I was saying
the whole ridiculous debate about your great-grandmother and the other
stuff was fun.

Nothing to do with my ancestry, the bits about Brandon's great-grandmother
were a diversion he started in order to respond to my post without
addressing the substance.

Because it was so silly.

Indeed.

<snip>

Peter, you talk sense most of the time and you're a good writer.

But you waste your talents on JB, because he brings out the biatch in you.
A shame.

Brandon's behaviour here is a nuisance to many people who don't speak up,
and worse than a nuisance when he feels he can get away with it. He needs to
be reminded occasionally that posting gratuitous insults on USENET is taking
a tiger by the tail, you don't get to say when it will stop or where it
might take you.

The failed technique of Hines and Richardson, lying in their teeth and
setting up strawmen while ignoring anything they can't answer, doesn't make
the predicament any safer for them. Brandon made that mistake today. He
usually tries only the second part, to no avail.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»