Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
TAF: Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.
BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
sent as private to an individual.
TAF: Here you are mistaken, and as you are demanding apologies, it is
important that you demand it of the right person or it will be you who
owes the wrongly accused an apology. In the thread "Middleton
pedigree, 1100-1600 . . . " on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:00:39 -0700, (in
other words, 16:00 GMT) a post from John Brandon hit the Google
archive, containing the entire contents of your private message.BA:
Then, on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:28:03 -0400, (17:28 GMT) Mr. Taylor's
response hit the archive, responding to Mr. Brandon's post and quoting
just a portion of the entire email previously posted by Mr. Brandon.
This course of events is still preserved in the Google Groups archive
to soc.gen.medieval.
BA: I AM GOING TO PUT THIS IN CAPS SO YOU CANNOT ESCAPE ITS
COGENT MEANING. I POST TO GEN-MEDIEVAL. I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING AT OTHER WEBSITES, MESSAGE BOARDS, ETC.
IF MR. TAYLOR IS SO SMART AND TEACHES AT HARVAAARD THEN HE
OUGHT TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE OWES THE RETURN MESSAGE TO THE
BOARD IT CAME FROM. AND YOU OUGHT TO DESIST IN PUTTING SPIN
ON IT OTHER THAN THE TRUTH AND CERTAINTY OF THIS RESPONSE.
Rather than 'spin', Todd is trying to educate you about the way this
particular Usenet newsgroup / mail list / web forum operates,
functionally, as a single extended public message medium.
John Brandon originally posted your e-mail message to the google groups
web interface, whence it went to the Usenet server network, whence it
went to the gen-medieval mail list gateway, and thence back to you. I
read John Brandon's message on my ISPs Usenet server. My reply to John
Brandon's message was posted directly to my ISP's Usenet server, with
the understanding that it would ultimately propagate coterminously with
the message to which it replied. And it did: it went both to the
gen-medieval mail list gateway, and to the googlegroups Usenet gate,
probably in parallel via distributed Usenet message propagation. This
is the way the system is designed, and it is beneficial to have so many
available technical means of participation in what amounts to a single
meta-group.
Your all caps here seem to show an increasing desperation in seeking
some sort of moral high ground, on any aspect of this thread. Just take
a deep breath, get over yourself, and you can continue to discuss (1)
the real ancestry of the Beccles Pecks; and (2) the interesting question
of the bogus Peck pedigree.
I'm personally much more interested in (2) than (1), but I'm sure you
can make headway on both if you modulate your approach a bit.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net