The BRITISH, not just ENGLISH, historians are, of course correct in
retaining the term Dark Ages.
Not really.
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
The BRITISH, not just ENGLISH, historians are, of course correct in
retaining the term Dark Ages.
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.
TAF: All of which is bluster to distract from the issue of stealing
scholarly ideas without attribution, which is an issue of scholarly
integrity, not copyright law.
BA: You, too, need to make an appointment with your optometrist! You
cannot copyright ideas. Period.
Now to *ethics*: since when was that the
main buzz-word of you and your sycophants?
BA: We are really talking about *copyright law* and as I have already written
it varies from nation to nation...
TAF: No, you are misapplying copyright law to complaints involving research
integrity.
BA: Surely you jest? I cited that you need a heads-up on *copyright law*
and on *libel law* and I stand upon that statement. Got it? Get it!
BA: I can assure gen-medievaliers that TAF has not a clue about these
*copyright* and *libel* matters...
TAF: If this last statement, an argument from personal assurance, is
indicative of your scholarship, well, it speaks for itself. I can
assure 'gen-medievaliers' (gag) that at least with regard to what I do
and do not know about copyright and libel law, Mr. Arnold is talking
out of his @$$.
BA: Do you *know* Iain Calder? Have you read *The Untold Story*?
Have you had on-the-job training in *copyright law* and in *libel law*
and had to write within the bounds for a decade in the writing business?
Why are you waiting for DR to do your heavy lifting, you can do it by
yourself.
TAF: I don't jest. You provided copyright cases in response to Will's
request of suits involving scholarly complaints over hijacking deas [sic]
without attribution.
BA: first of all, this is a copyright law issue
and some of the posts
affecting the reputation of a scholar are libel law issues.
As to your
pejorative nonsense above, with loaded words without meaning such
as "hijacking ideas without attribution," shows you clearly do not have
a clue.
You
do
not
have
a
clue!
BA: Go ahead and complain about your supposed ethics. I wash my
hands of your garbled thinking. None of what you are referring to
has a shred of meaning to a scholar.
I could educate you about scholarship,
but you have not a clue about laws nor ethics.
Douglas Richardson: I don't have just a page of acknowledgements in
my books. My books have HUGE bibliographies where EVERY published
source that I 've consulted in the preparation of my books is fully cited
and GRATEFULLY acknowledged. And my bibliography continues to
expand and grow!
BA: Written as only a true and certain gentleman and scholar would do!
The Lion has engraved it in stone!
BA: first of all, this is a copyright law issue and some of the posts
affecting the reputation of a scholar are libel law issues. As to your
pejorative nonsense above, with loaded words without meaning such
as "hijacking ideas without attribution," shows you clearly do not have
a clue.
Will Johnson: You are confusing two issues in this discussion. If I write a
five-hundred word essay about *why* Sir Francis Drake had an illegitimate
child John Browne who then went to Virginia, that is my copy and holds
my copyright.
BA: Assuming you are correct although *not* clear in the above statement,
precisely what do you think you are saying? Do you have the *idea* protected
so that you can sue in a court of law for copyright infringement? If not the
latter, which seems to be the position of TAF, then please rephrase it.
BA: Boy, JB, did you step in the deep doo-doo cow patties with TAF! Are you out
there in the far west visiting? You claim to be a genealogist and do not even have
the where-with-all to realize there is an *IDENTITY* crisis in your work. It ain't
me, Dim Wit!
BA: No, JB, *YOU* conflated two different Bill Arnolds. Sheesh. There are
Will Johnson: You are confusing two issues in this discussion. If I write a
five-hundred word essay about *why* Sir Francis Drake had an illegitimate
child John Browne who then went to Virginia, that is my copy and holds
my copyright.
BA: Assuming you are correct although *not* clear in the above statement,
precisely what do you think you are saying? Do you have the *idea* protected
so that you can sue in a court of law for copyright infringement? If not the
latter, which seems to be the position of TAF, then please rephrase it. And
you write I am confusing two issue and then address only one. What is the
other?
Will Johnson: If someone else merely states in brief "Sir Francis Drake had an
illegitimate child John Browne born about 1620 of Virginia" they are not copying my
copy. Only my idea. They are not quoting me verbatim, not any part of my copy
since I never said exactly that. Are you stating that this brief statement would violate
my Copyright on my five-hundred word essay?
BA: You are suggesting something, what? Answer your own question? And be specific
to the multi-part issues in the question which should have been a statement.
Bill
Will Johnson: I'm sure we would all be in your debt, were you to provide an actual
case, won, where one person sued another because they stole their published thought
without acknowledgement.
BA: Check it out!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount
http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/sue.htm
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/'Rounders ... roader+p...
http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/distprac.htm
Bill
---------------
Peter Stewart: More outright lies from Arnold - so he can sue me again.
BA: Why sue somebody without deep pockets? And why sue somebody
who lies that I am a liar? If this above lie is the substance of your alleged
scholarship, then I doubt everything you write and have ever written.
Douglas Richardson: I don't have just a page of acknowledgements in
my books. My books have HUGE bibliographies where EVERY published
source that I 've consulted in the preparation of my books is fully cited
and GRATEFULLY acknowledged. And my bibliography continues to
expand and grow!
BA: Written as only a true and certain gentleman and scholar would do!
The Lion has engraved it in stone!
Peter Steward: So in one thread Arnold claims that it's improper to
publish
even someone else's THOUGHTS without acknowledgment, while in this one
he insanely commends Richardson for saying that he acknowledges only
PUBLISHED sources.
BA: Take a deep breath, Peter. You wrote two statements of alleged fact
above. Let us separate them. First of all you wrote, "Arnold claims that
it's improper to publish even someone else's THOUGHTS without
acknowledement." I categorically deny I wrote such a sentence. Deal
with this or forever hold you peace!
Do you have the *idea* protected so that you can sue in a court of
law for copyright infringement?
If not the latter, which seems to be the position of TAF, then please
rephrase it.
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.
Dear Newsgroup ~
I'm SO GLAD that Mr. Stewart posted today.
Back when Peter Stewart still had an operational e-mail address, I
contacted him and thanked him for sharing a source he had found
regarding the Fitz Alan family. I told him I wanted to cite him in my
forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry.
Mr. Stewart's reply was that it wasn't necessary to cite him. But I
did anyway. See Plantagenet Ancestry, pg. 315 where it says
"reference coirtesy of P.M. Stewart."
Afterwards Mr. Stewart learned that I had included his name in my
material. He angrily DEMANDED publicly to know how his name got mixed
in with my material. Mr. Stewart either forgot our earlier
correspondence,. or chose to lie about it.
Now he claims I just stay
around sgm to filch people's material. What an astonishing accusation
coming from someone who said he didn't want to be credited, and, then
when he was, he subsequently demanded to know how it happened.
Needless to say, Mr. Stewart's name has since been eradicated from my
manuscripts.
Well, Mr. Stewart, you can't have it BOTH WAYS. You either want
credit, or you don''t. But please don't lie about it.
As for forgetting about our earlier correspondence, I'll chalk that up to
your old head injury and possible reverse reactions to your ongoing
medications.
In any case, you are nothing more and nothing less than
an immoral man. I wished I could say I feel sorry for you. But I
don't. Goodbye, Peter. And, as Spencer says, "Don't let the door hit
you on the way out."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah.
On Dec 6, 1:08 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
And of course Richardson haunts sgm in order to garner the
unpublished thoughts of others in hresponse to his errors and omissions,
that he can then filch as his own in print.
Peter Stewart
BA: No, JB, *YOU* conflated two different Bill Arnolds. Sheesh. There
are....
John Brandon: No, FOOL, I was merely following the *explicit* statement in
OCLC that
the same Bill Arnold is author of _Make Them Happy ... Make Them Pay_
and _The Secret Lovechild of Emily D._, er whatever rubbish it was ...
[Emily Dickinson's Secret Love]
BA: Trust me on this, I am a journalist. We journalists have a lot of
useful
sayings which sum up Dim Wits like you: believe half of what you see and
hear,
and none of what John Brandon and Peter Stewart writes!
My apologies for misstating what you had written about this.
Peter Stewart
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart, after cutting and running from SGM with his tail between his
legs for a SECOND time and then slinking back in Frustrated High Dudgeon --
is currently entertaining us all with yet ANOTHER Grand Hissy Fit and
asinine, but vicious, personal attack on Douglas Richardson.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
recte:
Veni, Vidi, Linxi Anum
Dear Hikaru ~
Nice post, but you've left out ALL of your sources.
Can you possibly
repost the message, and add your sources please?
I can provide you further particulars regarding John
de Hopton and his
wife, Isabel de Burley. Please see below.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City,
Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Family of John de Hopton, Knt., and his wife, Isabel
Burley:
1. JOHN DE HOPTON, Knt., of Prilleston, Norfolk,
Burwaton and Fitz,
Shropshire, Fulbrook, Great Harborough, Pailton (in
Monks Kirkby), and
Wodecote (in Leek Wootton), Warwickshire, etc., son
and heir, adult by
1370. He married before 1377 ISABEL BURLEY,
daughter of John Burley,
K.G., of Birley, Herefordshire. They had one son,
John. In 1370 he
owed £100 to John Brown, of Buckinghamshire, which
debt was still
unpaid in 1376. In 1387 he granted the manors of
Great Harborough,
Fulbrook, Pailton (in Monks Kirkby), and Wodecote
(in Leek Wootton),
Warwickshire to John son of Henry Langford
(evidently a trustee). His
widow, Isabel, allegedly married (2nd) JOHN
TRUSSELL.
References:
Blomefield, An Essay Towards a Topog. Hist. of the
County of Norfolk 5
(1806): 319. Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble
Order of the Garter
(1841): 257-260. Lloyd, Hist. of the Princes, the
Lords Marcher, and
the Ancient Nobility of Powys Fadog 3 (1882): 208.
Tresswell &
Vincent, Vis. of Shropshire 1623, 1569 & 1584 1
(H.S.P. 28) (1889):
253-256 (1623 Vis.) (Hopton pedigree: "Sir John
Hopton Knt. = [1]
Elizabetha da. & heir to Sir John Burley Knt. [2] =
Johannes Trussell,
2d maritus"). Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds 3 (1900):
195. Trans.
Shropshire Arch. & Nat. Hist. Soc. 3rd Ser. 4
(1904): 302-304; 4th
Ser. 6 (1916-17): 233. VCH Warwick 6 (1951): 100.
Shropshire Feet of
Fines, CP 25/1/195/18, no. 11 (fine dated 12
Nov.1379 between John de
Hopton, knight, querent, and William Thornhull and
Florence, his wife,
deforciants, re. the manor of Burwarton and the
advowson of the church
of the same manor, and a moiety of the manor of
Fittes [Fitz],
Shropshire) (abstract of document available online
at http://
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fin ... 5_18.shtml).
PRO Document, C 241/158/56 (debt of John de Hopton,
Knt. to John
Brown) (abstract of document available online at
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message
On Dec 7, 10:37 am, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net
wrote:
Dear Douglas etal.,
Isabel Hopton DID NOT marry Trussell. His wife is
someone else.
Kay Allen AG
Dear Kay ~
Good to hear from you as always.
When you have a moment, please cite your source,
and, if you have it,
provide a weblink for your statement. Otherwise we
just have your
word for this. As an Accredited Genealogist, you're
well aware that
history and genealogy are based on evidence, not
opinion. So, by all
means, let's see your evidence.
I'll follow up with my evidence and state the
source.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City,
Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message
BA: You need to go to college, or *back* to college and take a remedial-reading
course in English! If that is what you got from my post, then you are as thick
skulled as I think you are. I have no intention of filing a lawsuit unless I find
grounds. Are you fearful you have given me grounds? And I am *not* threatening
anyone! I am being the fair-minded *Esquire* and offering fair warning to all.
You must admit This List shares in a few more than an excessive amount of
ad hominems which at times verge/indeed, step into the realm of *libelous*
posting. Fair warning to *all* and, Willy, that is all, as in all members, so
stop taking my posts to *all* personally. If you stop replying to me I will not
reply to you, now will I? Chill out, take a walk around the block, square your
shoulders, and do some Yoga breathing: one, two, three, now go ahead: relax :0
Bill, Esquire
Will Johnson: I have a brief write-up about Bill on my wiki. Not that I found
much and not that I dug much, but at some point he had posted, in the past,
also a URL to Case Western Reserve University implying that he was affiliated with it
somehow. The page it points at is now defunct so I cannot see what it used to
say.
BA: Look, Willy, do *not* invade my private life. I mailed you some materials,
gratis, and that was private and I told you so and I remind you, FOR YOUR EYES
ONLY! Take down *ANYTHING* you have posted on your so-called wiki about
me. That is an *INVASION OF MY PRIVACY* and that, Son, is indeed *libelous*!
I am *not* a public figure. I suggest you seek advice of counsel, immediately.
Bill, Esquire
*****
___________________________________________________________________________-_________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
BA: Look, Willy, do *not* invade my private life. I mailed you some materials,
gratis, and that was private and I told you so and I remind you, FOR YOUR EYES
ONLY! Take down *ANYTHING* you have posted on your so-called wiki about
me. That is an *INVASION OF MY PRIVACY* and that, Son, is indeed *libelous*!
I am *not* a public figure. I suggest you seek advice of counsel, immediately.
Bill, Esquire
BA: Look, Willy, do *not* invade my private life. I mailed you some materials,
gratis, and that was private and I told you so and I remind you, FOR YOUR EYES
ONLY! Take down *ANYTHING* you have posted on your so-called wiki about
me. That is an *INVASION OF MY PRIVACY* and that, Son, is indeed *libelous*!
I am *not* a public figure. I suggest you seek advice of counsel, immediately.
On Dec 7, 1:25 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will Johnson: I have a brief write-up about Bill on my wiki. Not that I found
much and not that I dug much, but at some point he had posted, in the past,
also a URL to Case Western Reserve University implying that he was affiliated with it
somehow. The page it points at is now defunct so I cannot see what it used to
say.
BA: Look, Willy, do *not* invade my private life. I mailed you some materials,
gratis, and that was private and I told you so and I remind you, FOR YOUR EYES
ONLY! Take down *ANYTHING* you have posted on your so-called wiki about
me. That is an *INVASION OF MY PRIVACY* and that, Son, is indeed *libelous*!
I am *not* a public figure. I suggest you seek advice of counsel, immediately.
Bill, Esquire
*****
BA: This is an open letter to the owner of gen-medieval, and other boards that
messages are cross-posted to of which you are the owner. The above allegation(s)
of Will Johnson are *libelous* on several accounts, but I will cite two (1) he has
lied about me, and (2) he has *invaded my privacy as a private person* and has
*advertised* on your owned message board that he has invaded my privacy by
posting private information about me which I have told him in the above post
is *private* and he is told to *cease and desist* in invading my privacy. This
is a serious matter. Please advise Will Johnson to cease and desist using your
privately-owned message board to advertise his so-called *wiki* which has
invaded my privacy.
Sincerely,
Bill Arnold
billarnold...@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida
U.S.A.
*****
Actually Bill, everything I've documented is public information. If
there is something on my write-up that is not public information, tell
me what it is.
"Lying" isn't libel by the way, but that's beside the point, because I
know of no place where I've "lied" about you.
On Dec 7, 1:25 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will Johnson: I have a brief write-up about Bill on my wiki. Not that I found
much and not that I dug much, but at some point he had posted, in the past,
also a URL to Case Western Reserve University implying that he was affiliated with it
somehow. The page it points at is now defunct so I cannot see what it used to
say.
BA: Look, Willy, do *not* invade my private life. I mailed you some materials,
gratis, and that was private and I told you so and I remind you, FOR YOUR EYES
ONLY! Take down *ANYTHING* you have posted on your so-called wiki about
me. That is an *INVASION OF MY PRIVACY* and that, Son, is indeed *libelous*!
I am *not* a public figure. I suggest you seek advice of counsel, immediately.
Bill, Esquire
*****
BA: This is an open letter to the owner of gen-medieval, and other boards that
messages are cross-posted to of which you are the owner. The above allegation(s)
of Will Johnson are *libelous* on several accounts, but I will cite two (1) he has
lied about me, and (2) he has *invaded my privacy as a private person* and has
*advertised* on your owned message board that he has invaded my privacy by
posting private information about me which I have told him in the above post
is *private* and he is told to *cease and desist* in invading my privacy. This
is a serious matter. Please advise Will Johnson to cease and desist using your
privately-owned message board to advertise his so-called *wiki* which has
invaded my privacy.
Sincerely,
Bill Arnold
billarnold...@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida
U.S.A.
*****
Actually Bill, everything I've documented is public information. If
there is something on my write-up that is not public information, tell
me what it is.
"Lying" isn't libel by the way, but that's beside the point, because I
know of no place where I've "lied" about you.
BA: OK, Willy, I have called my lawyer, flat out simple and plain. I
have found out that your wiki is based in the state of Florida, which
makes this easy. So, I suggest to do as I requested: take down anything
about Bill Arnold on your so-called wiki. I am a private person. Anything
I mailed you privately was meant to stay private. You are stalking me,
and invading my privacy. I suggest you do not involve the owner
of this list, Google, and Rootsweb, in your duplicity. You are wrong
on all accounts about libel, invasion of privacy, and your lies about
me. Fair warning.
Bill Arnold
billarnold...@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida
------------------------
On Dec 7, 2:03 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: OK, Willy, I have called my lawyer, flat out simple and plain. I
have found out that your wiki is based in the state of Florida, which
makes this easy. So, I suggest to do as I requested: take down anything
about Bill Arnold on your so-called wiki. I am a private person.
Anything
I mailed you privately was meant to stay private. You are stalking me,
and invading my privacy. I suggest you do not involve the owner
of this list, Google, and Rootsweb, in your duplicity. You are wrong
on all accounts about libel, invasion of privacy, and your lies about
me. Fair warning.
Bill Arnold
billarnold...@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida
------------------------
Could you be so kind at to at least give me your lawyer's phone number
so I can negotiate my surrender before the FBI shows up ?
By the way Bill which piece of data are you so uppity about? That you
wrote for the National Enquirer ? I just discovered your address.
You did know that was public information didn't you?
By the way, looking someone up in an old phone book isn't "stalking"
either. You should take your own advice and take a long walk.
Will Johnson
Anyone who cares can look here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... iam_Arnold
And tell me if anything there is not public information, or if
anything there is a lie or a libel.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Anyone who cares can look herehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/ceci ... iam_Arnold
And tell me if anything there is not public information, or if
anything there is a lie or a libel.
Thanks
Will Johnson
I claim the prize for working Bill up to a state of frothing at the
mouth. Where's my fruit cake?
Just one last post, pretty please because this one is sort of ....
well... you tell me.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... rgesr.html
George William Arnold, Jr alias Benedict Arnold
Now how do you like that?
I'm not saying that our George William "Bill" Arnold Jr born 1938 is
related to Benedict Arnold (I simply don't know), but it sure is odd
isn't it.
Will Johnson
From Meta
←Policies and guidelines Privacy policy
And what exactly does any of that have to do with your page?
You do not need permission to create a webpage about anybody. All the
data on my page is either data you yourself published, or data which
has been published by others, mostly on your behalf. Plus a few
things from public records.
So... tempest? teapot? Yeah.
Will Johnson
On Dec 7, 10:37 am, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Dear Douglas etal.,
Isabel Hopton DID NOT marry Trussell. His wife is
someone else.
Kay Allen AG
Dear Kay ~
Good to hear from you as always.
When you have a moment, please cite your source, and, if you have it,
provide a weblink for your statement. Otherwise we just have your
word for this. As an Accredited Genealogist, you're well aware that
history and genealogy are based on evidence, not opinion. So, by all
means, let's see your evidence.
I'll follow up with my evidence and state the source.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
--- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 1:25 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will Johnson: I have a brief write-up about Bill on my wiki. Not that I found
much and not that I dug much, but at some point he had posted, in the past,
also a URL to Case Western Reserve University implying that he was affiliated with it
somehow. The page it points at is now defunct so I cannot see what it used to
say.
BA: Look, Willy, do *not* invade my private life. I mailed you some materials,
gratis, and that was private and I told you so and I remind you, FOR YOUR EYES
ONLY! Take down *ANYTHING* you have posted on your so-called wiki about
me. That is an *INVASION OF MY PRIVACY* and that, Son, is indeed *libelous*!
I am *not* a public figure. I suggest you seek advice of counsel, immediately.
Bill, Esquire
*****
BA: This is an open letter to the owner of gen-medieval, and other boards that
messages are cross-posted to of which you are the owner. The above allegation(s)
of Will Johnson are *libelous* on several accounts, but I will cite two (1) he has
lied about me, and (2) he has *invaded my privacy as a private person* and has
*advertised* on your owned message board that he has invaded my privacy by
posting private information about me which I have told him in the above post
is *private* and he is told to *cease and desist* in invading my privacy. This
is a serious matter. Please advise Will Johnson to cease and desist using your
privately-owned message board to advertise his so-called *wiki* which has
invaded my privacy.
Sincerely,
Bill Arnold
billarnold...@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida
U.S.A.
*****
Actually Bill, everything I've documented is public information. If
there is something on my write-up that is not public information, tell
me what it is.
"Lying" isn't libel by the way, but that's beside the point, because I
know of no place where I've "lied" about you.
BA: OK, Willy, I have called my lawyer, flat out simple and plain. I
have found out that your wiki is based in the state of Florida, which
makes this easy. So, I suggest to do as I requested: take down anything
about Bill Arnold on your so-called wiki. I am a private person. Anything
I mailed you privately was meant to stay private. You are stalking me,
and invading my privacy. I suggest you do not involve the owner
of this list, Google, and Rootsweb, in your duplicity. You are wrong
on all accounts about libel, invasion of privacy, and your lies about
me. Fair warning.
Bill Arnold
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida
I claim the prize for working Bill up to a state of frothing at the
mouth. Where's my fruit cake?
WE are the beneficiaries of a Great Comedy Act and Continuing Entertainment
by said Pogue Stewart.
James, this
http://books.google.com/books?id=dlUBAA ... y&as_brr=1
is at least perhaps a slightly better source for this family.
Let's see if it tells us anything new and useful.
WE are the beneficiaries of a Great Comedy Act and Continuing
Entertainment by said Pogue Stewart.
I just thought you would like to know, that in my musings and wanderings
in the Peck family tree, our Bill Arnold has an ancestor called Poge.
I expect it's a mis-spelling.
--- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
Just one last post, pretty please because this one is sort of ....
well... you tell me.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... rgesr.html
George William Arnold, Jr alias Benedict Arnold
Now how do you like that?
I'm not saying that our George William "Bill" Arnold Jr born 1938 is
related to Benedict Arnold (I simply don't know), but it sure is odd
isn't it.
Will Johnson
As far as I know Renia, you don't subscribe to Google Books. I can
only guess that perhaps the country you live in is somehow blocked
from viewing the book for some sort of copyright issue. But I really
have no idea.
"wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40aa1d9b-1ecc-4f0b-a69d-adf5ecdd507b@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
As far as I know Renia, you don't subscribe to Google Books. I can
only guess that perhaps the country you live in is somehow blocked
from viewing the book for some sort of copyright issue. But I really
have no idea.
All the world outside the USA is blocked from some "Full view" books.
Go to http://www.proxify.com (where you can subscribe for uninterrupted use, or you
can surf for free within limits) and you can return to Google books with the
same access as in the USA.
NB unproxified links provided from there will need to be edited each time.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart wrote:
"wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40aa1d9b-1ecc-4f0b-a69d-adf5ecdd507b@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
As far as I know Renia, you don't subscribe to Google Books. I can
only guess that perhaps the country you live in is somehow blocked
from viewing the book for some sort of copyright issue. But I really
have no idea.
All the world outside the USA is blocked from some "Full view" books.
Go to http://www.proxify.com (where you can subscribe for uninterrupted use, or
you can surf for free within limits) and you can return to Google books
with the same access as in the USA.
NB unproxified links provided from there will need to be edited each
time.
Peter Stewart
I could actually view this particular piece.
I was commenting that not all of John Brandon's googly recommendations are
readable.
Bill Arnold wrote:
TAF: I can understand his desire for privacy. The other day he told
Renia he was strafed, dug in, in a mud trench on the beach of Mt.
Suribachi.
Given the date of the Battle of Iwo Jima and the birthdate that
appears (appeared) on Will's site, well, the USMC was *really* taking
them young.
BA: OK: TAF, that was a *metaphor* for the *shelling*
received here at gen-medieval. Not the literary type, are you?
Obviously, if I am 70 then I could not have been really on that
island.
So, you told me a lie?
You see: I was being
*satiric* which is *not* libelous.
Lies are not satire. They are lies.
If someone, such as Will, invades my
privacy, stalks me and my background, he is liable.
Anything which is available by a bit of surfing, is not private, it is
public. That is the danger of the internet. Do not blame Will.
If this message
board allows him to continue, then this message board is a party
to his libelous action. Are *you* the owner?
This is not a message board. It is a newsgroup. No one is the owner. No
one moderates it. That's how DSH has managed to survive so long.
There is absolutely nothing you can do about stuff about you on the
internet, particularly stuff you about yourself which you enter on the
internet, you "resident of the State of Florida", you.
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of wjhonson
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:32 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gramma's AT
On Dec 6, 3:27 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
1370. Daniel Epes [685/2740], probably a son of John and Thomasine
(Fisher) Epes, b. ---; bur. 26 June 1630 St. Olave Hart Street,
London; m. ---
1371. Martha Reade [685/2742], Col. Edmund and Elizabeth (Cooke)
Reade, b. ---; d. 1662 (called "very crazy" [i.e., sickly] in a
letter dated early 1662) Ipswich, Massachusetts; m. (2)
shortly after
3 Aug. 1636 to Gov. Samuel Symonds
-----------
On the birth of Martha Reade, what do you think of this
http://kinnexions.com/smlawson/gallup.htm
Here's his contact info
http://kinnexions.com/smlsource/contact.htm
Might be interesting to ask him, from where he got this list of
children with birth (baptismal?) dates
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
BA: This is an open letter to the owner of gen-medieval, and other boards that
messages are cross-posted to of which you are the owner. The above allegation(s)
of Will Johnson are *libelous* on several accounts, but I will cite two (1) he has
lied about me, and (2) he has *invaded my privacy as a private person* and has
*advertised* on your owned message board that he has invaded my privacy by
posting private information about me which I have told him in the above post
is *private* and he is told to *cease and desist* in invading my privacy. This
is a serious matter. Please advise Will Johnson to cease and desist using your
privately-owned message board to advertise his so-called *wiki* which has
invaded my privacy.
Sincerely,
Bill Arnold
billarnold...@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida
U.S.A.
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Douglas,
Attack all you want. Why should I give you information
that I hope to have published myself? This information
has been vetted by Paul Reed and Dr. Neil Thompson,
who are both FASGs.
So, as you so often have said, "You'll have to read
the article(s)."All the evidence is available, if
you look for it, as I did. Your evidence could matter
less to me, because I have the evidence disproving it.
Yours in collegiality,
BA: This is an open letter to the owner of gen-medieval, and other boards that
messages are cross-posted to of which you are the owner. The above allegation(s)
of Will Johnson are *libelous* on several accounts, but I will cite two (1) he has
lied about me, and (2) he has *invaded my privacy as a private person* and has
*advertised* on your owned message board that he has invaded my privacy by
posting private information about me which I have told him in the above post
is *private* and he is told to *cease and desist* in invading my privacy. This
is a serious matter. Please advise Will Johnson to cease and desist using your
privately-owned message board to advertise his so-called *wiki* which has
invaded my privacy.
Mr. Arnold, Esquire,
First allow me to clarify a few misconceptions. The GEN-MEDIEVAL
mailing list has two listowners, but the term is somewhat misleading,
and list Administrator is now the preferred title. The material on the
list is not crossposted to any other messge boards, although its host,
RootsWeb.com, a subsidiary of Ancestry.com, replicates the messages
that appear on the list and deposit them in the USENET newsgroup
soc.genealogy.medieval, as well as taking messages from soc.gen.med
and posting them to GEN-MEDIEVAL. Soc.gen.med is an unmoderated
newsgroup, and as such has no listowner, existing solely at the
pleasure of each individual service provider worldwide (probably
numbering in the thousands or even tens of thousands, and only this
small a number because many ISPs farm out the service). Any complaints
regarding that side of the gateway will need to be taken up with each
individually. There is a soc.genealogy.medieval message board, hosted
by Google, which then copies the messages from the USENET group of the
same name. Any complaints concerning the Google board should be
directed to Google. Contrary to what you have suggested, the GEN-
MEDIEVAL mailing list does not exist at the sufferance of Google, nor
does the USENET newsgroup soc.genealogy.medieval: both existed for a
half-dozen years before Google bought out Deja.com (formerly DejaNews)
and began providing this mirror message board. As has been indicated
to others in the past, Google is a service by which one can access the
group through other means, it is not the host of the group nor does it
have any administrative control over the group.
What in this whole process do the listowners have control over? What
happens at Google or on USENET are entirely beyond the control of the
listowners, who have no role in the functioning of the soc.gen.med
newsgroup or the Google message board of the same name. The
listowners of GEN-MEDIEVAL have no control whatsoever over the
functioning of this gateway, nor is there software in place that might
enable such control. The listowners have no control over the general
settings of the moderation software, with only a few exceptions, and
no control over general policies (such as requiring subscription to
contribute), nor over the SPAM-trap. What can the listowners
control? Mainly three things. Listowners set the size limit,
determining a size above which posts become to weighty to be
conveniently distributed. Likewise, listowners have the power to
allow the list to accept posts from specific addresses not subscribed.
Finally, listowners have the ability to unsubscribe addresses and
prevent these addresses from being resubscribed. From Day One, The GEN-
MEDIEVAL listowners made the mutual decision not to exercise this
power, at least in part because, and here is the important point, the
listowners have no ability whatsoever to stop posters from submitting
to soc.gen.med and having the gateway pass the messages across; no
power whatsoever to address anything coming from soc.gen.med, no
matter how inappropriate, vile or illegal. Exercising banishment on
GEN-MED would be like not allowing someone to enter the front door of
a building where the back and side doors are unlocked and unguarded -
pointless. Again, material coming through the gateway is not
moderated at all, not even for SPAM, and direct submissions to the
list are not moderated for content (except for a generic SPAM filter),
nor is there a mechanism in place to allow effective moderation on
this basis.
[snip]
Interesting...
Just this one URL?
DSH
--- wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Just one last post, pretty please because this one is sort of ....
well... you tell me.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... rgesr.html
George William Arnold, Jr alias Benedict Arnold
Now how do you like that?
I'm not saying that our George William "Bill" Arnold Jr born 1938 is
related to Benedict Arnold (I simply don't know), but it sure is odd
isn't it.
Will Johnson
How about a compromise.
The factual Wikipedia biography of Arnold is taken down. "Bill"
Arnold publicly undertakes NEVER to post again on SGM.
OK, DSH will lose a source of HILARITY but you can't please everyone!
David
Anyone who cares can look here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... iam_Arnold
And tell me if anything there is not public information, or if
anything there is a lie or a libel.
How about a compromise.
The factual Wikipedia biography of Arnold is taken down. "Bill"
Arnold publicly undertakes NEVER to post again on SGM.
Any thoughts?
[BTW: Do gateways to/from Usenet exist for any other Rootsweb mailing
lists? If not, why should this one continue to have one?]
"wjhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f9f3a9eb-2b36-43dd-80ed-2e2654223a9f@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anyone who cares can look here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... iam_Arnold
And tell me if anything there is not public information, or if
anything there is a lie or a libel.
Not libellous, but still it is unfair in conception and goes too far in the
context.
Arnold has not brought his marriage or his wife's name into sgm discourse as
far as I recall, and so personal details regarding her can have no proper
place in a spin-off from his participation here.
On Dec 8, 1:17 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"wjhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f9f3a9eb-2b36-43dd-80ed-2e2654223a9f@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anyone who cares can look here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... iam_Arnold
And tell me if anything there is not public information, or if
anything there is a lie or a libel.
Not libellous, but still it is unfair in conception and goes too far in the
context.
Arnold has not brought his marriage or his wife's name into sgm discourse as
far as I recall, and so personal details regarding her can have no proper
place in a spin-off from his participation here.
At its heart, I would have to agree with this. If the very act of
participating in this group opens one up to have their entire life
placed under a microscope, it must have a very stifling effect, and
tends to turn into a grand exercise in ad hominem. The only exception
I would make (which applies in this case to some, but only some, of
the information) is when the individual themselves introduces certain
credentials to give weight to their opinion, which action does, I
think, open these aspects (and only these aspects) of they life to
scrutiny, but this should not extend to their entire existence.
Likewise, there is a certain level of detail that should probably
never be breached, given the modern environment of identity theft,
even if the material is available for the asking: phone number,
address, birthdate and place, immediate family information, medical
information; and certain aspects that serve no good purpose and are
inherently inflammatory, such as issues of sexual orientation. I
personally find pointers to on-line photos from anyone but the subject
to be objectionable, but that may just be me.
Basically, however obnoxious a poster may have made themselves, does
it justify this kind of examination, and more importantly, will such
treatment serve as yet another way that this group tends to scare
newbies and lurkers into silence or even departure?
taf