"Leticia Cluff" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:00:29 -0800 (PST), suthen <
[email protected]wrote:
Tish,
Look back in the archives and look for discussions regarding Douglas
promising a signed copy of his Planatagenet book to Spencer which he
later allegedly reneged. Clearly a signed copy of the first book and
possibly the second and no doubt some private research are the answer
you are seeking.
Many thanks.
I'd still prefer to hear from the two gentlemen themselves an
explanation of why they stopped slinging mud at each other, to the
extent that Douglas can now say that "Spencer cotributes [sic] much of
value to the newsgroup."
The truth is that most of the problems here would be solved if Spencer
disappeared. He contributes virtually nothing but inane comments,
irrelevant questions, personal abuse, and cross-posting which brings a
lot of Terrible British Food and other rubbish to this group.
The sgm archive tells the story plainly enough in their own words, Tish.
In October 2004 Hines made a fool of himself trying to define "non
sequitur", showing in the process that his knowledge of Latin doesn't go
nearly as deep as his own thick skin:
On Oct 8 2004, 4:42 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <
[email protected]> wrote:
[I had written}
"Sequor" primarily means "to follow", and "sequitur" is the third
person indicative active, present tense, meaning "he/she/it follows".
PeterStewart
Actually, Peter, _SEQUITUR_ is third person, indicative, PASSIVE,
present tense -- meaning [literally, among other meanings] "he/she/it is
[is being] followed."
So, NONSEQUITUR literally means -- "it [the logic] is NOT being
followed" -- but your original, correct, "it does not follow" parses
better.
Cheers And Aloha,
Spencer
I pointed out this elementary error on his part over a deponent verb.
Before this the most recent substantial attention paid by Hines to
RIchardson was in affirmation of my ciriticism, in July of the same year:
On Jul 4 2004, 11:28 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <
[email protected]> wrote:
PeterStewart is right on all counts below.
Further, he does not "stalk" Douglas Richardson -- he simply reports on
his incompetence and simpering fraud ---- a valuable service to us all.
Many of you tyros would be far wiser to pay FAR MORE attention to the
posts of PeterStewart and FAR LESS to the posts of Richardson.
You will wind up with far better genealogies, hands down.
D. SpencerHines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
By November of the same year, the month after his touble with "non
sequitur", Hines was trying to retrieve his position on "Mr" RIchardson,
with hysterical capitalisations:
On Nov 24 2004, 9:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <
[email protected]> wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie is posting MERETRICIOUS NONSENSE again.
I AM the PERSON who requested that Douglas Richardson post the reviews
of his book and that others join in as well -- posting reviews and/or
additions and comments. Mr. Richardson HIMSELF has acknowledged that --
on several occasions.
I did NOT do it for the loony conspiratorial reasons alleged by Mr.
Farmerie below -- but for the quite straightforward reasons I STATED at
the TIME -- namely to elicit a TRUE APPRECIATION of the merits and
deficiencies of Mr. Richardson's book -- sans favor, special pleading or
bias. There was NOTHING DISINGENUOUS about my motives.
OF COURSE, we are going to see all sorts of reviews, including PUFF
PIECES and HATCHET JOBS.
THAT'S what the FREE MARKET OF IDEAS is all about.
TRUTH comes out of CONFLICT.
Pitifully, Farmerie is congenitally driven to lie about and distort my
motives -- and then to propagate said lies and distortions to SGM and
GEN-MEDIEVAL.
NO OTHER book, with the possible exception of _Royalty For Commoners_,
has received such CRITICAL TREATMENT here as has Richardson's PA3. And
in that case, the author threatened lawsuits against his critics.
Richardson has done nothing of the sort. He has, to date, been above
board and honest in dealing with the reviews.
I, and MANY OTHERS, have raked Douglas Richardson over the coals on this
book for SEVERAL YEARS -- even as he was preparing it -- and subsequent
to its publication.
We should ALL understand that -- and give due credit to Douglas for
being willing to undergo this ordeal -- examination under the
MICROSCOPE.
How many of YOU could withstand such an EXAMINATION?
As to Farmerie, he is callow, temperamental, excitable, shows poor
judgment and is subject to frequent episodes of LYING, DISTORTING and
MISREPRESENTING the posts of others to this newsgroup and this sister
genealogical list.
As to the SPECIFIC line Farmerie has examined, however. he has raised
some quite valid points and questions and THOSE are what we NEED to be
DISCUSSING.
Farmerie is ALSO LYING when he says he has NO PERSONAL ANIMUS against
Douglas Richardson. He tells Martin Hollick there is "NOTHING PERSONAL
HERE" and "DON'T PERSONALIZE IT."
NONSENSE. Farmerie has ALREADY PERSONALIZED IT -- including LYING about
my MOTIVES in requesting the REVIEWS.
NOW we need to be looking at ADDITIONAL LINES in PA3, and other books
and articles, and pointing out POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS.
THAT is the way GENEALOGICAL SCHOLARSHIP PROCEEDS.
NOT with sniggling, personalized, error-ridden attacks of the sort
Farmerie INDULGES in below. He is like a small boy who, no doubt
frustrated by SOMETHING ELSE in his LIFE -- strikes out blindly and
viciously at an alleged antagonist -- without getting his ducks in a row
and his facts straight.
SO ---- we discuss the genealogical lines ---- there are thousands of
them to pursue ---- and we don't follow Farmerie into childish tantrums
and callow, emotional attacks -- not anchored in FACT and EVIDENCE.
Exitus Acta Probat.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
By the following month the pair were in repellent cahoots, over their
tiresome habit of crossposting:
On Dec 4 2004, 1:51 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <
[email protected]> wrote:
Bingo!
Quite True....
Thank you, Douglas.
Of course, we should all be careful and DISCIPLINED when we
SIMUL-POST -- and not just do it frivolously and to excess.
You certainly did not do so in your post.
The YAHOOS unfortunately, want to PROHIBIT ALLSimultaneousPosting----
which is RISIBLE.
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
| Well said, Spencer, well said. Very sensible post.
|
| You are absolutely correct: Simultaneouspostingis the best and the
| most efficient way to get a message to more than one group. And, as
| busy as I am, saving time is important to me.
|
| I appreciate that Google allows everyone to simultaneously post, if
| they choose to do so. This is the essence of free speech. And, free
| speech is a wonderful thing.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]>...
| > There is no good reason why Douglas Richardson, or anyone else,
| > should be put to that extra trouble and waste of time.
|
| > He posted to two groups simultaneously. Yes, that's obviously the
| > best and most efficient way to do it.
|
| > Deal with it and quit whining, you whingers.
|
| > Whiners and whingers should not expect to be APPEASED just because
| > they whine, kvetch and wring their hands.
|
| > They are worse than small, spoiled children, who think if they just
| > whine long enough they will get their way.
|
| > Wrong!
|
| > DSH
The relationship has not exactly developed since, but what can be expected
of two people who rightly despise and unrighteously need each other in equal
measure?
Peter Stewart
