Could y'all keep your personal attacks off-list?
It makes you look like a class of three-year-olds on a playground, and
does nothing to convince the rest of us that you are experts in
medieval genealogy.
The personal attacks in this group
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John R.
Re: The personal attacks in this group
On Dec 15, 6:42 am, "pj.evans" <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree. This is an informative and interesting group but the
constant personal attacks are childish and annoying. Please keep it
professional and not personal. If you disagree, state why you
disagree and back up your arguments with sources, not petty personal
attacks. Personal attacks reflects more on the person doing the
attacking than on the person being attacked.
Could y'all keep your personal attacks off-list?
It makes you look like a class of three-year-olds on a playground, and
does nothing to convince the rest of us that you are experts in
medieval genealogy.
I agree. This is an informative and interesting group but the
constant personal attacks are childish and annoying. Please keep it
professional and not personal. If you disagree, state why you
disagree and back up your arguments with sources, not petty personal
attacks. Personal attacks reflects more on the person doing the
attacking than on the person being attacked.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: The personal attacks in this group
What do you do when, as I did, you give a source showing Richardson's
opinion was wrong and he refuses to reply? How professional is Richardson's
behaviour? When someone says something, you cannot simply say "You are wrong
again" and leave it like that. If he disagrees either he says why he
disagrees, or he should remain silent. .
Richardson has created a very special position for himself. He placed
himself on a pedestal and has rules for others that do not apply to himself.
He should be held accountable for his actions.
When something wrong is going on, people should speak up. Remaining silent
is agreeing with the culprit.
Too often Richardson makes a statement he cannot justify, and his
"professional" tactic is to ignore, hoping it will go away. For others to
look the other way only encourages his behaviour. If Richardson would reply
to what is said "personal attacks" would not happen.
He maintained Renia was wrong with her statement about Robertson and
Robinson, let him say why he thinks it is wrong and what it should be. It is
so "unprofessional" not to. If he thinks that for him saying "You are wrong
again" is sufficient and others just should stand in awe, he is wrong.
Are we a gathering where "pleasantness" is important above all and let
correct information suffer to achieve that?.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "John R." <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: The personal attacks in this group
opinion was wrong and he refuses to reply? How professional is Richardson's
behaviour? When someone says something, you cannot simply say "You are wrong
again" and leave it like that. If he disagrees either he says why he
disagrees, or he should remain silent. .
Richardson has created a very special position for himself. He placed
himself on a pedestal and has rules for others that do not apply to himself.
He should be held accountable for his actions.
When something wrong is going on, people should speak up. Remaining silent
is agreeing with the culprit.
Too often Richardson makes a statement he cannot justify, and his
"professional" tactic is to ignore, hoping it will go away. For others to
look the other way only encourages his behaviour. If Richardson would reply
to what is said "personal attacks" would not happen.
He maintained Renia was wrong with her statement about Robertson and
Robinson, let him say why he thinks it is wrong and what it should be. It is
so "unprofessional" not to. If he thinks that for him saying "You are wrong
again" is sufficient and others just should stand in awe, he is wrong.
Are we a gathering where "pleasantness" is important above all and let
correct information suffer to achieve that?.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "John R." <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: The personal attacks in this group
On Dec 15, 6:42 am, "pj.evans" <[email protected]> wrote:
Could y'all keep your personal attacks off-list?
It makes you look like a class of three-year-olds on a playground, and
does nothing to convince the rest of us that you are experts in
medieval genealogy.
I agree. This is an informative and interesting group but the
constant personal attacks are childish and annoying. Please keep it
professional and not personal. If you disagree, state why you
disagree and back up your arguments with sources, not petty personal
attacks. Personal attacks reflects more on the person doing the
attacking than on the person being attacked.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The personal attacks in this group
On Dec 15, 9:35 am, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:
< What do you do when, as I did, you give a source showing
Richardson's
< opinion was wrong and he refuses to reply? How professional is
Richardson's
< behaviour? When someone says something, you cannot simply say "You
are wrong
< again" and leave it like that. If he disagrees either he says why he
< disagrees, or he should remain silent. .
Are you causing trouble again, Leo?
< What do you do when, as I did, you give a source showing
Richardson's
< opinion was wrong and he refuses to reply? How professional is
Richardson's
< behaviour? When someone says something, you cannot simply say "You
are wrong
< again" and leave it like that. If he disagrees either he says why he
< disagrees, or he should remain silent. .
Are you causing trouble again, Leo?
-
Renia
Re: The personal attacks in this group
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I'm afraid the trouble was caused by you, Douglas, when you declared me
point-blank wrong on what I said about Robertson and Robinson, without
giving your reasons. Then, when others disagreed with you on this, you
demanded cites and URLs and declared they were to be ignored.
It's not cricket, Douglas.
On Dec 15, 9:35 am, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:
What do you do when, as I did, you give a source showing
Richardson's
opinion was wrong and he refuses to reply? How professional is
Richardson's
behaviour? When someone says something, you cannot simply say "You
are wrong
again" and leave it like that. If he disagrees either he says why he
disagrees, or he should remain silent. .
Are you causing trouble again, Leo?
I'm afraid the trouble was caused by you, Douglas, when you declared me
point-blank wrong on what I said about Robertson and Robinson, without
giving your reasons. Then, when others disagreed with you on this, you
demanded cites and URLs and declared they were to be ignored.
It's not cricket, Douglas.
-
Renia
Re: The personal attacks in this group
Douglas Richardson wrote:
So do I, as it happens. But you will know that the expression "it's not
cricket" means you are not playing by the rules.
On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:
It's not cricket, Douglas.
Here in America we don't play cricket. I do swim and do Yoga
regularly, though. Does that count?
So do I, as it happens. But you will know that the expression "it's not
cricket" means you are not playing by the rules.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The personal attacks in this group
On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:
< It's not cricket, Douglas.
Here in America we don't play cricket. I do swim and do Yoga
regularly, though. Does that count?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< It's not cricket, Douglas.
Here in America we don't play cricket. I do swim and do Yoga
regularly, though. Does that count?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The personal attacks in this group
On Dec 15, 11:55 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:
If so, then you must know that citing 19th Century census schedules is
"not cricket" when addressing a question about medieval or colonial
name usage.
As ever, DR
So do I, as it happens. But you will know that the expression "it's not
cricket" means you are not playing by the rules.
If so, then you must know that citing 19th Century census schedules is
"not cricket" when addressing a question about medieval or colonial
name usage.
As ever, DR
-
Renia
Re: The personal attacks in this group
Douglas Richardson wrote:
It's not cricket to ignore that evidence, either. It is stupidity.
On Dec 15, 11:55 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:
So do I, as it happens. But you will know that the expression "it's not
cricket" means you are not playing by the rules.
If so, then you must know that citing 19th Century census schedules is
"not cricket" when addressing a question about medieval or colonial
name usage.
As ever, DR
It's not cricket to ignore that evidence, either. It is stupidity.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The personal attacks in this group
On Dec 15, 12:05 pm, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:
Are you calling me stupid? That's not cricket, Renia.
DR
It's not cricket to ignore that evidence, either. It is stupidity.
Are you calling me stupid? That's not cricket, Renia.
DR
-
Margaret
Re: The personal attacks in this group
I agree that when something wrong is going on, people should speak up.
So I'm sending this.
However it looks to me as though Richardson is perversely provocative
knowing full well that decent people feel the need to put things
right. It's hard to tell whether he knows what he's doing or not, he
doesn't seem to be aware of how ridiculous he looks.
I wonder if indifference would work. He enjoys riling people and has
no self respect so reasoning will not stop his pretentious arrogance
and rudeness. More likely he finds any response reassuring. It goes
against the grain to let his many errors, distortions and
misrepresentations slide but totally ignoring him might work. Any
comments could be made under a different heading without reference,
perhaps. I notice that a few days ago someone dealt a very clever blow
exposing his stupid citing sources ploy but you see he's bounced back
as if nothing had happened.
I have not, by the way, changed the heading of this thread. I've only
responded to Leo's post below.
yours
Margaret
On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:
So I'm sending this.
However it looks to me as though Richardson is perversely provocative
knowing full well that decent people feel the need to put things
right. It's hard to tell whether he knows what he's doing or not, he
doesn't seem to be aware of how ridiculous he looks.
I wonder if indifference would work. He enjoys riling people and has
no self respect so reasoning will not stop his pretentious arrogance
and rudeness. More likely he finds any response reassuring. It goes
against the grain to let his many errors, distortions and
misrepresentations slide but totally ignoring him might work. Any
comments could be made under a different heading without reference,
perhaps. I notice that a few days ago someone dealt a very clever blow
exposing his stupid citing sources ploy but you see he's bounced back
as if nothing had happened.
I have not, by the way, changed the heading of this thread. I've only
responded to Leo's post below.
yours
Margaret
On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:
What do you do when, as I did, you give a source showing Richardson's
opinion was wrong and he refuses to reply? How professional is Richardson's
behaviour? When someone says something, you cannot simply say "You are wrong
again" and leave it like that. If he disagrees either he says why he
disagrees, or he should remain silent. .
Richardson has created a very special position for himself. He placed
himself on a pedestal and has rules for others that do not apply to himself.
He should be held accountable for his actions.
When something wrong is going on, people should speak up. Remaining silent
is agreeing with the culprit.
Too often Richardson makes a statement he cannot justify, and his
"professional" tactic is to ignore, hoping it will go away. For others to
look the other way only encourages his behaviour. If Richardson would reply
to what is said "personal attacks" would not happen.
He maintained Renia was wrong with her statement about Robertson and
Robinson, let him say why he thinks it is wrong and what it should be. It is
so "unprofessional" not to. If he thinks that for him saying "You are wrong
again" is sufficient and others just should stand in awe, he is wrong.
Are we a gathering where "pleasantness" is important above all and let
correct information suffer to achieve that?.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "John R." <[email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: The personal attacks in this group
On Dec 15, 6:42 am, "pj.evans" <[email protected]> wrote:
Could y'all keep your personal attacks off-list?
It makes you look like a class of three-year-olds on a playground, and
does nothing to convince the rest of us that you are experts in
medieval genealogy.
I agree. This is an informative and interesting group but the
constant personal attacks are childish and annoying. Please keep it
professional and not personal. If you disagree, state why you
disagree and back up your arguments with sources, not petty personal
attacks. Personal attacks reflects more on the person doing the
attacking than on the person being attacked.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The personal attacks in this group
Well at least Margaret is reading my posts. But is she learning
anything? That's the question.
DR
anything? That's the question.
DR
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Personal Attacks In This Group
Bingo!
Renia Stulta Disarmata Reducta...
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6297e258-d35a-466c-a966-db50f6a59268@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Renia Stulta Disarmata Reducta...
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6297e258-d35a-466c-a966-db50f6a59268@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 15, 11:55 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:
So do I, as it happens. But you will know that the expression "it's not
cricket" means you are not playing by the rules.
If so, then you must know that citing 19th Century census schedules is
"not cricket" when addressing a question about medieval or colonial
name usage.
As ever, DR
-
Gjest
Re: The personal attacks in this group
On Dec 15, 9:16 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there anything to learn from your posts? Surely that's the
question.
You should have been a British politician - the "Do as I say, not as I
do" brigade
DC
Well at least Margaret is reading my posts. But is she learning
anything? That's the question.
DR
Is there anything to learn from your posts? Surely that's the
question.
You should have been a British politician - the "Do as I say, not as I
do" brigade
DC