Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Larry Swain

Re: Pearls Cast Before Swine...

Legg inn av Larry Swain » 06 des 2007 16:48:15

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
The BRITISH, not just ENGLISH, historians are, of course correct in
retaining the term Dark Ages.


Not really.

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 06 des 2007 17:15:04

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: ...and because *THIS* is the information highway aka the internet, there is a
whole new branch called internet copyright law. Educate yourselves,
sycophants!

TAF: To accuse others of sycophancy given your behavior here is ironic.

BA: Yada, yada, yada: you and Hemingway, Pity and Irony :0 Wrote the
cat to the mice, and the mouse to the cats!

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer

Bill

*****





____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2007 17:31:02

On Dec 6, 8:06 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.

When you get to the part that I am not supposed to be aware of, let me
know.

Now to *ethics*: since when was that the
main buzz-word of you and your sycophants?

Either a) you have created an Arnoldian definition of sycophant which
differs from the standard one, or b) you are using the word
inappropriately.

As to ethics, that is and has been the complaint on the table since
the beginning, in spite of your continued harping on copyright law.


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!


I don't jest. You provided copyright cases in response to Will's
request of suits involving scholarly complaints over hijacking deas
without attribution. That you continue to harp on about copyright law
makes it no more relevant to the original issue. One of those common
patterns of troll behavior - misinterpret the subject under discussion
and then insist that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing
because you have said copyright all along. Yes, you have been
blathering on about copyright and insisting that other people, talking
about integrity, are silly for not knowing it has nothing to do with
copyright law. I know it doesn't and it is exactly for that reason
that the introduction of copyright law into this discussion was an
overblown red herring, and it continues to be so with every post in
which you beat this dead fish.


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?

Rhetorical questions intended by Mr. Arnold to show how much Mr.
Arnold knows, which is another red herring as the subject of
discussion was whether I have a clue regarding these issues.

taf



taf

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 06 des 2007 17:46:02

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

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.

Bill

*****



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

Gjest

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW: WAS Re: The Longes pée parentage...

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2007 19:12:04

In a message dated 12/6/2007 8:45:36 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:

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 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.

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?

Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2007 19:22:03

In a message dated 12/6/2007 6:59:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:

BA: Once all extant records in England and Scotland and elsewhere which
impinge upon this scholarly question are studied in depth, court, chancery,
deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and a final resolution as to the parentage of
Robert Peck,
the Elder, is established, then it might indeed turn out that this
Englishman of
the 15th/16thC had descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do
not.



-----------------
Well then Bill, get started.
Why are you waiting for DR to do your heavy lifting, you can do it by
yourself.



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

John Brandon

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 des 2007 20:33:02

Why are you waiting for DR to do your heavy lifting, you can do it by
yourself.

And we sincerely wish you would.

John Brandon

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 des 2007 20:37:02

OCLC authority record #2231708:

010 n 88064154
040 DLC ǂb eng ǂc DLC ǂd DLC
1001 Arnold, Bill
670 [Author of Make them happy/make them pay]
670 His Make them happy/make them pay, c1987: ǂb t.p. (Bill Arnold)
p. v (pres. and founder of Intl. Collection Training Institute, Inc.)
670 [Author of Emily Dickinson's secret love]
670 His Emily Dickinson's secret love, 1998: ǂb t.p. (Bill Arnold)
about the author (Prof. of English, Palm Beach Community College)
670 [Author of Rememberances of the Pacific Electric]
670 Rememberances of the Pacific Electric, c2000: ǂb t.p. (Bill
Arnold)
675 Phone call to Palm Beach Community College, Aug. 12, 1998 ǂa (not
full-time staff; unable to contact Prof. Arnold or provide further
information)

John Brandon

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 des 2007 20:40:05

OCLC record #18050239:

010 88114985
040 DLC ǂc DLC ǂd BTCTA
020 ǂc $29.95 (pbk.)
0500 HG3752.5 ǂb .A76 1987
0820 658.8/8 ǂ2 19
090 ǂb
049 SUCC
1001 Arnold, Bill.
24510Make them happy/make them pay : ǂb Bill Arnold's system for
collecting past due accounts / ǂc by Bill Arnold.
260 [Anderson, Ind.?] : ǂb International Collection Training
Institute, ǂc c1987.
300 xix, 153 p. ; ǂc 23 cm.
650 0Collecting of accounts.


Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2007 20:55:06

On Dec 6, 8:44 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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

No, it is not. It is an issue of scholarly integrity. It was an issue
of scholarly integrity when raised by Will, and your continued
attempts to twist it into a copyright issue do not make it otherwise.
It has been and remains about the simple principle of giving scholarly
credit where credit is due.

and some of the posts
affecting the reputation of a scholar are libel law issues.

If you are making this type of accusation, be specific. Was it in
stating that scholars generally know when someone is taking credit for
the work of another, or when they have cited works they have not read,
or when they have cited sources antithetical to their conclusions?
Given that I was making a generic statement, and that the subject of
the statement was the scholars who can tell, I have to ask how someone
without a guilty conscience could consider themselves a victim of
libel from that statement. Was it in indicating that you take a
special interest in who Emily Dickinson had the hots for? Just look
at the title of your book. Was it in suggesting that you are a novice
here? That comes from your own admissions when first appearing, and
your actions since.

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.

That is the complaint on the table, and to just repeat "you don't have
a clue" as the sole refutation is not very persuasive.


You
do
not
have
a
clue!

As I said.

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.

Ah, but there you are wrong. Many scholars (for better or worse) put
great stock in being appropriately acknowledged for their
contributions.

I could educate you about scholarship,
but you have not a clue about laws nor ethics.

Another biting commentary, causing me to completely reevaluate my
position. Not.

You seem to get phrases stuck in your head and you can't avoid using
them repeatedly. For a while, everything was a "true and certain"
"identity fact". In the last post, you decided the word 'sycophant'
sounded good, and used it multiple times in lieu of substantive
criticism. Now, it is "You don't have a clue! You don't have a clue!
You don't have a clue!" it is like talking with a five-year old who
just learned a new word.

taf

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 06 des 2007 21:08:03

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. 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

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping

Peter Stewart

Re: Grateful acknowledgements

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 des 2007 21:08:30

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.317.1196943564.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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!

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.

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.

Even Hines has the nous to realise this, when not compromising his alleged
"principles" to ingratiate himself with the reprobate, and has said so
several times.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 des 2007 21:13:02

But to be fair, it does sound like a rather upbeat book on a rather
unpleasant topic ...

http://www.amazon.com/Make-Them-Happy-P ... 9990659222

Bill Arnold

Re: Grateful acknowledgements

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 06 des 2007 21:36:03

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!

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2007 21:37:02

On Dec 6, 12:06 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.

What a strawman! I have not now nor in this discussion have I ever
been talking about copyright, except its inapplicability to the issue,
and I have explicitly stated this several times. I have explicitly
stated that the issue has nothing to do with copyright law. To now
suggest that I hold some bogus position about copyrighting ideas is to
tell a bold-faced lie, although not your first here. You continue to
throw manure in this group and then complain about the smell.

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 06 des 2007 21:39:02

John Brandon: But to be fair, it does sound like a rather upbeat book on a rather
unpleasant topic ...

http://www.amazon.com/Make-Them-Happy-P ... 9990659222

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!

Bill

*****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 06 des 2007 21:43:03

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.

Bill

*****



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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Grateful acknowledgements

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 des 2007 21:45:02

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 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

John Brandon

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 des 2007 21:47:02

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!

We have cows here in South Carolina as well.

Authority records in OCLC are usually quite accurate (they pay close
attention to lists of previous works which may occur on bookjackets,
back covers (otherwise known as "p. 4 of cover"), and opposite title
pages. However, of course, they do make mistakes from time to time,
so they may have conflated two Bill Arnolds in the present instance.

But is it really a good sign that Palm Beach Community College
couldn't track you down?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Grateful acknowledgements [REVISED POST]

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 des 2007 21:48:02

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

Bill Arnold

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 06 des 2007 22:01:02

John Brandon: Authority records in OCLC are usually quite accurate (they pay close
attention to lists of previous works which may occur on bookjackets,
back covers (otherwise known as "p. 4 of cover"), and opposite title
pages. However, of course, they do make mistakes from time to time,
so they may have conflated two Bill Arnolds in the present instance.

BA: No, JB, *YOU* conflated two different Bill Arnolds. Sheesh. There are
six Bill Arnolds out of 1,000,000 residents of Palm Beach County. Wake up,
Dim Wit! Is this the level of *expertise* of your genealogical work?

John Brandon: But is it really a good sign that Palm Beach Community College
couldn't track you down?

BA: Consult the archives, Dim Wit. I am retired and left PBCC as an adjunct
professor in 1998. Good Lord, you have really worked yourself into a sweat.
Next you'll get in touch with Iain Calder? Please do. Also read his book:
*The Untold Story.* He is a very literate Brit, and the adjective does *not*
fit you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer

Bill

*****


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

John Brandon

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 des 2007 22:04:02

BA: No, JB, *YOU* conflated two different Bill Arnolds. Sheesh. There are

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 ...

Bill Arnold

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 06 des 2007 22:15:06

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!

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping

John Brandon

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 des 2007 22:50:07

Interesting that "the other" Bill Arnold calls himself "BA" as
well ...

http://billarnoldassociates.com/newfile ... rnold.html

wjhonson

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

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 01:37:02

Bill you seem to be under a misconception about what copyright
protects, and what it doesn't.

I would think as an author you'd want to be crystal-clear about what
you can and cannot protect.

Copyright by the way, IIRC does not address "acknowledgement" at all,
it's merely about what and how much you've copied, not whether you've
acknowledged the source or not.

Proper citation/acknowledgement is a scholarly norm, that does not
mean it's a law.

Will Johnson

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 07 des 2007 04:03:03

Will Johnson: Bill you seem to be under a misconception about what copyright
protects, and what it doesn't.

BA: I have written my writ, and done with it.

Bill

*****



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

wjhonson

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

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 06:00:03

On Dec 6, 12:06 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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

I am suggesting that Person A can summarize what Person B has writen
and not be in violation of copyright law. You should know Bill, in
addition, that there was a recent case involving Dan Brown where the
suit was addressing exactly your points. A much better example.

Will

wjhonson

Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 06:03:02

On Dec 6, 4:58 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
---------------

Bill did you actually read in detail what this first lawsuit was
about?

This was a breach-of-contract lawsuit. It had nothing whatsoever to
do with copyright or acknowledgement or plagarism or anything of that
sort at all. Those issues were not raised at trial.

The movie actually used what Buchwald had writen, they made it into a
movie, or used it in a movie and they had a contract between them to
pay *him* a portion of their Net Revenue.

They paid him nothing, stating that the movie didn't have *any* Net
Revenue. They didn't *steal* his ideas, they used them, under a
contract, which they interpreted with some accounting finangling to
his disfavor. He sued and won based on their funny accounting. It
had nothing to do with stealing his ideas in the manner you are
proposing.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 06:47:02

On Dec 7, 7:41 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.

You have only to provide verifiable citations to the published
articles of your "cousin", as claimed, and prroof of your own
employment as a teacher at a recognised college.

You cannot know anything of my financial situation, and your arbitrary
statement that you are telling the truth is worthless.

And to answer your question "Why sue somebody without deep pockets?",
even assuming this to be the case, the reason is obvious: to vindicate
your claims and personal reputation. But you can't concevably carry
through with this, because you were quite obviously lying in the first
place.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Grateful acknowledgements

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 10:51:38

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.351.1196973298.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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!

You are right AND directly telling the truth about something, a unique
co-incidence so far in your wild careering through sgm.

I read too hastily your post containing a question to WIll Johnson:

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.349.1196971628.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<snip>

Do you have the *idea* protected so that you can sue in a court of
law for copyright infringement?

However, I did not read on (it is indeed almost unbearable to read through
your posts) to the following sentence:

If not the latter, which seems to be the position of TAF, then please
rephrase it.

Leaving aside whether or not this was ever a position taken by Todd, your
own position was uncharacteristically clear, elsewhere, on this sole point:

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

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.

My apologies for misstating what you had written about this.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Grateful acknowledgements [REVISED POST]

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 11:24:05

Comments interspersed:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9b5ec028-e166-4305-aba0-47a33da4d862@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
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.

I still have an "operational" e-mail address, it's just not known to you,
for good reason. And you did not say you "wanted" to cite my post, much less
to acknowledge the correction to your own public misstatement contained in
it, but only that you would do so.

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."

And I did not care about it, but that should make no difference whatsoever
to a reputable scholar as to the necessity of citing a source of
information.

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.

You are going to have to substantiate this, as I have no recollection of it.
I certainly would prefer not to have my name "mixed in" with "your"
material, but since there is so little of the latter in any of your books,
and so few points where my name could possibly come up in them, it is not
something I am ever likely to get exercised about. If there was such an
exchange between us, it was most probably not about the Fitzalan matter,
that I recall perfectly well and have your email to remind me of anyway.

You neglected to verify the source I gave you, or if you did this at all you
did not understand what was meant in the context, as it told more about the
question at issue than I had commented on and you failed to realise this
important aspect in your final PA3 version.

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.

Once again, this was not a conscionable scholarly act - sources should be
cited, not personalities. IF you are telling the truth about this alleged
episode, that I doubt, the responsible course would have been to cite the
sgm thread and date of my post, noting that the author had requested not to
be named.

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.

Um, I hadn't said anything about this, truth, lie or otherwise - YOU brought
it up. I was writing about your pilfering of sgm in general and of Rosie
Bevan's work and Mardi Carter's post in particular.

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.

Spoken as if by Hines himself - and no less deceitful when coming from a
second moron who knows nothing about my state of health.

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."

Hines claimed that I gave my "word" to go away, but I did no such thing: I
stated it as my intention to leave sgm again, after returning unwillingly to
expose yet another of your impostures. This is not a commitment to you or to
anyone else - I shall do as I choose, not as you wish.

And it doesn't perturb me in the least, of course, that someone with your
warped sensitivities and constant misrepresentations should pretend to think
me "immoral".

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

If this is not the motivation for your persevering here after SO many
humiliations - that would put an end to the participation and indeed to the
career of any self-respecting person who had blundered into medieval
genealogy - then WHY exactly do you stay around shamelessly displaying your
mendacity, ignorance and immaturity, day after day?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 11:47:20

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.355.1196975633.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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!

Now Arnold is conflating John Brandon and Peter Stewart, with a singular
verb.

Some journalist.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Grateful Acknowledgements

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 07 des 2007 15:34:18

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.

Stewart is obviously still suffering from his continuing mental health
problems dating back to that drunken fall off the motorcycle, in which he
smashed his noodle on the cobblestone at Oxford some 28 years ago.

BUT, look at the bright side...

WE are the beneficiaries of a Great Comedy Act and Continuing Entertainment
by said Pogue Stewart.

So Let Us Now Be Grateful And Thankful...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Grateful Acknowledgements

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 07 des 2007 15:50:30

Certainly not the first time...

"Peter" has a Grand Reading Comprehension Problem too.

Smash of noodle on cobblestone...

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:KI86j.21269$CN4.16893@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

My apologies for misstating what you had written about this.

Peter Stewart

Leticia Cluff

Re: Grateful Acknowledgements

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 07 des 2007 16:00:34

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:34:18 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

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


Yes, but the personal attack on Douglas Richardson is not nearly as
vicious as this one from Hines himself, the notorious porn-surfer who
is the master of ad hominem attacks:

"In my carefully considered opinion, anyone who has been following
Richardson's posts to this newsgroup over the years and who has NOT
come to the conclusion that Richardson is a sly, manipulative
charlatan and an utter fraud is clearly naive, none-too-swift and a
damned fool to boot.

I've been reading him for eight years now and have seen nothing to
change my mind on that considered judgment. Further, folks here will
know I used to DEFEND Richardson and encourage folks to cut him some
slack.

Well, we DID cut him some slack --- far more than he deserved -- and
Richardson proceeded to hang himself with it. "


And since Douglas insists on a weblink if a post is not to be ignored,
here is the source of the original quotation from the man who is now
browning his tongue so profusely after yet another inexplicable
about-face:

http://groups.google.se/group/soc.genea ... 1f83119670


Tish

De vilitate Hinis non disputandum est

Kay Allen

Re: The medieval Burley family of Shropshire and Herefordshi

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 07 des 2007 18:41:03

Dear Douglas etal.,

Isabel Hopton DID NOT marry Trussell. His wife is
someone else.

Kay Allen AG

--- Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

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

Douglas Richardson

Re: The medieval Burley family of Shropshire and Herefordshi

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 07 des 2007 19:20:03

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

Gjest

Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2007 19:45:07

In a message dated 12/7/2007 4:27:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:

you *cannot* copyright "ideas"
so you best alter your usage of *words* when you refer to *copyright*
and *libel* law or you will find your butt in deep trouble some day!
Better yet, get advice of counsel. Fair warning to you and everybody
on this list.>>



------------------------
Put up or shut up Bill. Start the lawsuits over how I use a word, let's see
how far you get. I'm eager and waiting for it. Otherwise start threatening
everyone who shows up your silliness, we're all old enough to know exactly
how far this sort of blustering extends.

As to the rest of your post, the history of this thread speaks for itself,
everyone can read exactly what I wrote and you wrote, and no
re-characterization post facto is going to change that.

Will Jhnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longespée par

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2007 19:50:04

In a message dated 12/7/2007 9:20:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
taf@clearwire.net writes:

Given that being a "professor of English" seems to equate with a stint
at a community college (nothing against community colleges>>


-------------------
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.

Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Douglas Richardson

Re: Grateful Acknowledgements

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 07 des 2007 21:36:03

On Dec 7, 8:00 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
<
< And since Douglas insists on a weblink if a post is not to be
ignored, ...
<
< Tish

I don't "insist" anything, Tish. I merely request. But, in any
event, I'm glad you're getting the point. That's a start.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Bill Arnold

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longespée pare

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 07 des 2007 21:46:02

TAF: This, by the way, is the correction - he had to add the exclamation
mark to the word legitimate...

BA: So you *cannot* read as well as Will? I did a *me-bad* with the word:
legitimate. Read it again :0

TAF: Ad hominems are not inherently libelous, just flawed logic.

BA: Well, because so many are flashing their ID-logic, they are mixing in
*lies* about messengers when they respond. Such is *libelous*: I hope
you know.

BA: There are many exceptions to the laws of copyright and libel, and in
the former the blantant *bending of the rules* are notorious in three areas
germane to this forum: scholarship, satire and parody.

TAF: Are these examples of "blatant bending of the rules", or simply rules
that accommodate broader liberties in these areas?

BA: Many posters to gen-medieval believe they are writing satire in their
remarks. Do you know if that is *libelous* or not? I do. And as to the
former, *copyright* law: as far as we here at gen-medieval are concerned,
there are *blatant bending of the rules* of what is understood to be
copyright law. If you understand the nuances, one can do wonders :0
You all need to educate yourselves on these matters, because misunderstanding
this *crack* in the law, many scholars may do marvelous things, and those
not knowing where the *line in the sand* exists, have fear and loathing
to go there. You know the saying: fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
In the case of scholarship, a *special* case in *copyright* law, it is reversed:
Angels rush in where fools fear to tread! Angels=Lions! Trust me on this :)

TAF: ...and given that being a "Dickensonian scholar" means . . .

BA: Really now: that IS: Dickinson, and don't *YOU* forget it!

Bill, Esquire

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

Bill Arnold

Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of C

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 07 des 2007 21:55:03

BA: you *cannot* copyright "ideas" so you best alter your usage of *words*
when you refer to *copyright* and *libel* law or you will find your butt in
deep trouble some day! Better yet, get advice of counsel. Fair warning to
you and everybody on this list.

Will Johnson: Put up or shut up Bill. Start the lawsuits over how I use a word,
let's see how far you get. I'm eager and waiting for it. Otherwise start threatening
everyone who shows up your silliness, we're all old enough to know exactly
how far this sort of blustering extends.

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

*****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping

Bill Arnold

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longespée pare

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 07 des 2007 22:00:03

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

Kay Allen

Re: The medieval Burley family of Shropshire and Herefordshi

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 07 des 2007 22:19:02

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,

Kay Allen AG

--- Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

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

wjhonson

Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 22:23:03

On Dec 7, 12:52 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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


OK We've had our *warning* Mister lawyer-hat.
You can't libel garbage by saying it stinks. I'm sure you've heard
that a few times, from your journalist work haven't you. You worked
for one of the pre-eminent mags that knew this quite well. So what
color is your pot that you're calling our kettles black? Black? Yes
that's right.

Will Johnson

wjhonson

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longes pée par

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 22:25:04

On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, 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

*****

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

Well my dear that was before you decided to *LIBEL* and *SLANDER* me
wasn't it :)
All's fair in love and war. And your *private* life is exhibited
broadly all across your articles and books. Hardly private when you
post the details yourself in your own publications.

There is a photograph of you and your wife in a newspaper. Are you
going to claim that your picture is private when it's on each of your
books?

wjhonson

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longes pée par

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 22:29:02

On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

Maybe you should read again "Authors as Public Figures".
Yes virginia, they are.

Gjest

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longes pée par

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2007 22:45:04

On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.

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. Truly despicable, trading sympathy or worse, cheap
debating points, off of the blood of brave men. Professor Arnold,
Esquire, author and expert, wouldn't want that to come out.

Oh, and the CWRU connection was a false lead - they were just hosting
the EmDick web site.

The thing is, whether it be as a writer, as an EmDick scholar, as an
English professor, or a island hopping grunt, and now as the legal
eagle of this group (as if we needed another reason . . . ), it has
been Mr. Arnold himself who has introduced his personal life, and now
he demands privacy.

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 07 des 2007 23:05:06

--- 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

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping

Bill Arnold

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 07 des 2007 23:15:07

--- 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, you maintain "*lying* isn't libel by the way..."? What
planet do you live on?

BA: OK, Willy, your so-called *wiki* is maintained by:

Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
200 2nd. Ave. South #358
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
USA
Phone: 1-727-231-0101
Email: info@wikimedia.org

I have called them and asked them to have you cease and desist
from stalking me, invading my privacy, and libeling me. If you
do not take down any reference to me/and or my family, I will
pursue this to the Nth degree. Fair warning.

Bill Arnold
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

wjhonson

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 23:16:02

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

wjhonson

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 23:17:02

Wait... you were born in 1938 but graduated (B.A.) in 1964 ? That's a
little long in the tooth for a B.A. isn't it?

wjhonson

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 23:18:03

Actually Bill I've already added more.

wjhonson

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 23:21:02

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MESS

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 07 des 2007 23:24:10

Where is this Wiki page?

What's the URL?

DSH

"wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a246c0f0-bd80-4ea9-9e57-1da94515e78b@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

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

Bill Arnold

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 07 des 2007 23:38:03

--- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

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


BA: A little birdy told me that JB assisted you in stalking me. I will
have *no more* responses to you about this matter online at
gen-medieval, nor anyone else: on advice of counsel, located here
in the state of Florida. You have been warned by me to take down
this *unauthorized* public display of private information about me,
and others in my world, and I accuse you and anyone who has
assisted you in this matter of stalking me, invading my privacy,
and making lies, false accusations of fact, about me and those
in my world. Such is libelous, a tort, and I will have others deal
with you forthwith: including at Wikimedia foundation Inc., of
the state of Florida, Google and Rootsweb, where you are in
clear violation of their Terms of Policy. Fair warning: you owe
me a *retraction* for the libelous lie, and you owe me forthwith
the removal of an unauthorized web page about me and those
in my world. If you persist, you are liable to be sued by others
as well. Again, and for the last time, at gen-medieval: fair
warning.

Bill Arnold
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida

*****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

wjhonson

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 23:42:04

I claim the prize for working Bill up to a state of frothing at the
mouth. Where's my fruit cake?

pj.evans

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av pj.evans » 07 des 2007 23:43:05

On Dec 7, 2:20 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
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

Will, I didn't go looking for dates or addresses (not being
particularly interested in spouses and addresses), but I found the
rest of that stuff in about two minutes. On public, unprotected sites.

Your lawyer should have a field day with this.

wjhonson

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 23:44:03

By the way, in the State of Florida, is using the Florida marriage
index (produced by the state) really an invasion of privacy? You'd
think some smart law maker would make sure to pass a law that said
that marriage records were private.

I guess no one's quite thought of that in Florida yet.
Bill I expect you to get *right on* that gap in your privacy.

Peter Stewart

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MESS

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2007 23:47:38

"wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d84150c7-25d9-4a4a-8ad3-3d78e20ef547@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I claim the prize for working Bill up to a state of frothing at the
mouth. Where's my fruit cake?

Arnold ate it - the first fruitcake that ever consumed itself. He is famous
for something, at last....

Historians will be rushing to study this weighty matter, almost as important
as the Peck descent from Charlemagne or the Magruders in Scottish society.

Stop the tabbie press!

Peter Stewart

wjhonson

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 des 2007 23:53:03

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

Bill Arnold

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 08 des 2007 00:10:04

--- 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


BA: OK, Willy, to make you feel good, my counsel (who I will not name:
but boy is this up his alley) will speak by phone with the general counsel
for Wikimedia Foundation, where your web pages exist. In fact, I just
spoke with M. G. myself on his cell phone: bet you did not know that a
journalist such as myself can get some an animal so quick. Do not
doubt my word. Trust me on this. Take down the web pages which
are unauthorized: you have no permission to create web pages about
me. Cease and desist. You might lose your own web pages, because
you are in violation of their terms of service/policy.

Bill Arnold
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
resident of the state of Florida

*****

Privacy policy
From Meta
←Policies and guidelines Privacy policy

This version of the Privacy policy was approved in June 2006 by the Board of Trustees. The
official date of the change is July 1st as per the Board resolution.
Discussion and proposed changes are welcome on the talk page at Meta. It is requested that this
noticed be translated and moved to the Wikimedia Foundation site, from which it is linked from the
footer (MediaWiki:Copyright) of every page.
Translations: Alemannisch (outdated) | العربية
(outdated) | česky | 中文 (Chinese) | Cymraeg (outdated) | Dansk (review) |
Deutsch (outdated) | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Eesti
(outdated) | Français | Hebrew (Under Construction) | Magyar | Interlingua (outdated) | Bahasa
Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 (Japanese) | Nederlands (outdated) | Polski |
Português | Русский| Slovenščina (outdated) |
ไทย (Under Construction) | فارسي | Edit +/-
This is an open translation request
Please help translate it.
Click here to update the source text for the translation.
Click here to edit the status for individual translations.
Note: the latest source may differ from the version you are working on.

Translation status (refresh · edit)
(en) English
 published, too late for changes
(en-uk) English (UK)
 Wait until further notice
(en-us) English (US)
 Wait until further notice
(fr) French Français
 published, too late for changes
(es) Spanish Español
 published, too late for changes
(ja) Japanese 日本語
 published, too late for changes
(ru) Russian Русский
 published, too late for changes
(zh) Chinese 中文
 published, too late for changes
(zh-hant)Chinese-trad.傳統中文 ·create
(zh-hans)Chinese-simp.簡化中文 ·create
(ar) Arabic العربية
 partially translated
(bg) Bulgarian Български ·create
(bn) Bengali বাংলা ·create
(ca) Catalan Català ·create
(ce) Chechen Нохчийн ·create
(cs) Czech česky
 published, too late for changes
(da) Danish Dansk
 updated, needs proofreading
(de) German Deutsch
 not started
(el) Greek Ελληνικά
 published, too late for changes
(eo) Esperanto
 partially translated
(et) Estonian Eesti
 not started
(fa) Persian فارسی ·create
(fi) Finnish Suomi ·create
(fo) Faroese Føroyskt ·create
(gl) Galician Galego ·create
(he) Hebrew עברית ·create
(hi) Hindi हिन्दी ·create
(is) Icelandic Íslenska ·create
(hr) Croatian Hrvatski ·create
(hsb) Upper Sorbian Hornjoserbsce ·create
(hu) Hungarian Magyar ·create
(id) Indonesian Bahasa Indonesia
 published, too late for changes
(it) Italian Italiano
 partially translated
(jv) Javanese Basa Jawa ·create
(ko) Korean 한국어 ·create
(lt) Lithuanian Lietuvių ·create
(ms) Malay Bahasa Melayu ·create
(nb) Norwegian Bokmål ·create
(nl) Dutch Nederlands
 not started
(nn) Norwegian Nynorsk ·create
(no) Norwegian Bokmål (obsolete; use nb) ·create
(pl) Polish Polski
 published, too late for changes
(pms) Piemontese Piemontèis ·create
(pt) Portuguese Português
 published, too late for changes
(ro) Romanian Română ·create
(sk) Slovak Slovenčina ·create
(sl) Slovenian Slovenščina ·create
(sr) Serbian Српски/Srpski
 translated, needs copyediting
(sq) Albanian Shqip ·create
(sv) Swedish Svenska ·create
(th) Thai ไทย
 partially translated
(tl) Tagalog ·create
(tr) Turkish Türkçe ·create
(uk) Ukrainian Українська ·create
(vec) Venetian Vèneto ·create
(vi) Vietnamese Tiếng Việt ·create
(yue) Cantonese 廣東話 ·create

See Wikimedia:Privacy policy
This version of the Privacy policy was approved in June 2006 by the Board of Trustees. The
official date of the change is July 1st as per the Board resolution. Discussion and proposed
changes are welcome on the talk page at Meta.
It is requested that this notice be translated and linked from the footer (MediaWiki:Copyright) of
every page.
Contents [hide]
1 Summary
2 Publishing on the wiki and public data
2.1 Identification of an author
2.2 Cookies
2.3 Passwords
3 Private logging
3.1 Policy on release of data derived from page logs
4 Sharing information with third parties
5 Security of information
6 E-mail, mailing lists and IRC
6.1 E-mail
6.2 Mailing lists
6.3 Information email addresses
6.4 IRC
7 User data
7.1 Removal of user accounts
8 Deletion of content
Summary

If you only read the Wikimedia project websites, no more information is collected than is
typically collected in server logs by web sites in general.
If you contribute to the Wikimedia projects, you are publishing every word you post publicly. If
you write something, assume that it will be retained forever. This includes articles, user pages
and talk pages. Some limited exceptions are described below.
Publishing on the wiki and public data

Simply visiting the web site does not expose your identity publicly (but see private logging
below).
When you edit any page in the wiki, you are publishing a document. This is a public act, and you
are identified publicly with that edit as its author.
Identification of an author
When you publish a page in the wiki, you may be logged in or not.
If you are logged in, you will be identified by your user name. This may be your real name if you
so choose, or you may choose to publish under a pseudonym, whatever user name you selected when
you created your account.
If you have not logged in, you will be identified by your network IP address. This is a series of
four numbers which identifies the Internet address from which you are contacting the wiki.
Depending on your connection, this number may be traceable only to a large Internet service
provider, or specifically to your school, place of business, or home. It may be possible that the
origin of this IP address could be used in conjunction with any interests you express implicitly
or explicitly by editing articles to identify you even by private individuals.
It may be either difficult or easy for a motivated individual to connect your network IP address
with your real-life identity. Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to
log in and publish under a pseudonym.
When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public except in cases of
abuse, including vandalism of a wiki page by you or by another user with the same IP address. In
all cases, your IP address will be stored on the wiki servers and can be seen by Wikimedia's
server administrators and by users who have been granted "CheckUser" access. Your IP address, and
its connection to any usernames that share it may be released under certain circumstances (see
below).
If you use a company mail server from home or telecommute and use a DSL or cable Internet
connection, it is likely to be very easy for your employer to identify your IP address and find
all of your IP based Wikimedia project contributions. Using a user name is a better way of
preserving your privacy in this situation. However, remember to log out or disconnect yourself
after each session using a pseudonym on a shared computer, to avoid allowing others to use your
identity.
Cookies
The wiki will set a temporary session cookie (PHPSESSID) whenever you visit the site. If you do
not intend to ever log in, you may deny this cookie, but you cannot log in without it. It will be
deleted when you close your browser session.
More cookies may be set when you log in, to avoid typing in your user name (or optionally
password) on your next visit. These last up to 30 days. You may clear these cookies after use if
you are using a public machine and don't wish to expose your username to future users of the
machine. (If so, clear the browser cache as well.)
Passwords
Many aspects of the Wikimedia projects' community interactions depend on the reputation and
respect that is built up through a history of valued contributions. User passwords are the only
guarantee of the integrity of a user's edit history. All users are encouraged to select strong
passwords and to never share them. No one shall knowingly expose the password of another user to
public release either directly or indirectly.
Private logging

Every time you visit a web page, you send a lot of information to the web server. Most web servers
routinely maintain access logs with a portion of this information, which can be used to get an
overall picture of what pages are popular, what other sites link to this one, and what web
browsers people are using. It is not the intention of the Wikimedia projects to use this
information to keep track of legitimate users.
These logs are used to produce the site statistics pages; the raw log data is not made public, and
is normally discarded after about two weeks.
Here's a sample of what's logged for one page view:
64.164.82.142 - - [21/Oct/2003:02:03:19 +0000]
"GET /wiki/draft_privacy_policy HTTP/1.1" 200 18084
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_projects:Village_pump"
"Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/85.5"
Log data may be examined by developers in the course of solving technical problems and in tracking
down badly-behaved web spiders that overwhelm the site. IP addresses of users, derived either from
those logs or from records in the database are frequently used to correlate usernames and network
addresses of edits in investigating abuse of the wiki, including the suspected use of malicious
"sockpuppets" (duplicate accounts), vandalism, harassment of other users, or disruption of the
wiki.
Policy on release of data derived from page logs
It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or
through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system
administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:
In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement
With permission of the affected user
To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, her legal counsel, or her designee, when necessary for
investigation of abuse complaints.
Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is
necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data
may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a
complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers
Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia
Foundation, its users or the public.
Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances,
except as described above.
Sharing information with third parties

Except where otherwise specified, all text added to Wikimedia projects is available for reuse
under the terms of the GFDL, except for Wikinews, where the text is available under a Creative
Commons License.
Wikimedia will not sell or share private information, such as email addresses, with third parties,
unless you agree to release this information, or it is required by law to release the information.
Security of information

The Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee against unauthorized access to any information you
provide. This information may be available to anyone with access to the servers. A partial list of
those people can be found in the developers list.
E-mail, mailing lists and IRC

E-mail
You may provide your e-mail address in your Preferences and enable other logged-in users to send
email to you through the wiki. Your address will not be revealed to them unless you respond, or
possibly if the email bounces. The email address may be used by the Wikimedia Foundation to
communicate with users on a wider scale.
If you do not provide an email address, you will not be able to reset your password if you forget
it. However, you may contact one of the Wikimedia server administrators to enter a new mail
address in your preferences.
You can remove your email address from your preferences at any time to prevent it being used.
Mailing lists
If you subscribe to one of the project mailing lists, your address will be exposed to any other
subscriber. The list archives of most of Wikimedia's mailing lists are public, and your address
may find itself quoted in messages. The list archives are also archived by Gmane and other
services. Mails are usually not deleted or modified, but it may be done in extreme cases.
Information email addresses
Some email addresses (see below) may forward mail to a team of volunteers trusted by the
Foundation to use a ticket system such as OTRS to view them and answer them. Mail sent to the
system is not publicly visible, but is visible to this group of Wikimedia volunteers. By sending a
mail to one of these addresses, your address may become public within this group. The ticket
system team may discuss the contents of your mail with other contributors in order to best answer
your query.
Addresses that direct to the ticket system system include:
info-de AT wikipedia DOT org
info-en AT wikipedia DOT org
info-es AT wikipedia DOT org
info-fr AT wikipedia DOT org
info-it AT wikipedia DOT org
info-nl AT wikipedia DOT org
info-pl AT wikipedia DOT org
Mail to board members' private addresses may also be forwarded to the OTRS team.
IRC
IRC channels are not officially part of Wikimedia proper. By participating in an IRC channel, your
IP address may be exposed to other participants. Different channels have different policies on
whether logs may be published.
User data

Data on users, such as the times at which they edited and the number of edits they have made are
publicly available via "user contributions" lists, and in aggregated forms published by other
users.
Removal of user accounts
Once created, user accounts will not be removed. It may be possible for a username to be changed
(depending on the policies of your local wiki and on the number of edits you have). The Wikimedia
Foundation does not guarantee that a name will be changed on request.
Whether specific user information is deleted is dependant on the deletion policies of the project
that contains the information.
Deletion of content

Removing text from Wikimedia projects does not permanently delete it. In normal articles, anyone
can look at a previous version and see what was there. If an article is "deleted", any user with
"administrator" access on the wiki, meaning almost anyone trusted not to abuse the deletion
capability, can see what was deleted. Information can be permanently deleted by those people with
access to the servers, but there is no guarantee this will happen except in response to legal
action.
<-- the original document ends here. -->
Categories: Open requests for translation | Policies | Collaboration
content page discussion view source history
Log in / create account
navigation
Main Page
Goings-on
Wikimedia News
Translations
Recent changes
Random page
Help
beyond the web
Meet Wikimedians
Events
Chapters
DVDs
Wikimania
Donate
community
Metapub
Babel
Babylon
Planet Wikimedia
Communication Projects Group
search

toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permalink

This page was last modified 15:04, 4 October 2007. Content is available under GNU Free
Documentation License. Privacy policy About Meta Disclaimers


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

wjhonson

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av wjhonson » 08 des 2007 00:19:02

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

Gjest

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 00:24:04

Dear Will, Renia and others,
Pretty obviously not the same
Individual . whatever their lineages might be, John Middleton, husband of
Christian Strivelyn (whose father John was a Peer in the earlier part of King Edward
III`s reign) while the Barton / Assheton marriage took place in the reign of
King Henry VI Sources: Burke`s Rxtinct and Dormant Baronetcies Assheton of
Middleton, and Burke`s Peerage and Baronetage, Genealogical and Heraldic Monck
of Belsay, Northumberland
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

wjhonson

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av wjhonson » 08 des 2007 00:34:03

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.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 00:35:05

As a scholar, journalist and sometime "professor" of English can Mr Bill
Arnold spot something wrong with these sentences? How many marks would he give
a student of English grammar for writing them?

Now, who's fault it that?
(Bill Arnold <_billarnoldfla@yahoo.com_ (mailto:billarnoldfla@yahoo.com) >
Subject: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters Date:
Mon, 22 Oct 2007)

I have no idea who's bright idea, below, it was to malign S. Allyn Peck
(Bill Arnold <_billarnoldfla@yahoo.com_ (mailto:billarnoldfla@yahoo.com) >
Subject: Re: Peck pedigree: Shirley Allyn Peck was a man: sorry! Date: Mon, 29
Oct 2007)

do not make me find out who's good graces allows your wiki to exist.
(Bill Arnold <_billarnoldfla@yahoo.com_ (mailto:billarnoldfla@yahoo.com) >
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF THIS MESSAGE BOARD(S): Re: COPYRIGHT
LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longespe parentage... Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007)

Carol Edwards, Manchester, England

pj.evans

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av pj.evans » 08 des 2007 00:36:04

On Dec 7, 3:17 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
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

Wiki-lawyer. Probably thinks that authority is determined by number of
edits made. Or the number of people kicked out as editors. Wiki has
some serious problems they're ignoring.

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: AN OPEN LETTER...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 08 des 2007 01:15:44

In article
<f9f3a9eb-2b36-43dd-80ed-2e2654223a9f@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:


Please don't take this as evidence that I care, but:

The author of the book or books about collections practices is
apparently not the same person as the subject of your page.

See, e.g.:

http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/spea ... rnold/8914

and

http://www.wcspeakers.com/speaker.cfm?ID=3591

both of which have a picture. This Bill Arnold's own website,

http://www.billarnoldassociates.com/

is registered in Flower Mound, Texas. From other public records it
appears that the collections expert was born in August of 1944 and has
the middle initial 'J'.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 01:27:04

Dear Will,
Don`t know what went wrong. The google book search said "
John Middleton of Belsay" but " Remarks on the late war with Russia" came up.
Very Interesting. Try again later.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Renia

Re: The medieval Burley family of Shropshire and Herefordshi

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:23:44

Douglas Richardson wrote:

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

Kay has given you a hint. She does not need to cite her sources.

Renia

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER O F GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. ME

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:29:26

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- 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

Shouldn't that be "resident of the world"? You're giving out private
information about yourself.

Renia

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER O F GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:32:55

wjhonson wrote:

I claim the prize for working Bill up to a state of frothing at the
mouth. Where's my fruit cake?

We've been speaking to him for weeks.

Renia

Re: Grateful Acknowledgements

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:55:09

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.

Renia

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 02:57:09

wjhonson wrote:

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.

Maybe you're a subscribing member, or something, but half these Google
books don't show anything.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Grateful Acknowledgements

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 des 2007 03:11:42

Deeeeelightful!

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjcthq$jl0$5@mouse.otenet.gr...
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.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 des 2007 03:18:24

Interesting...

Just this one URL?

DSH

--- 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

wjhonson

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av wjhonson » 08 des 2007 03:27:03

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.

Basically this is a family chart showing that John Middleton of Belsay
who married Christian, had a son also John Middleton of Belsay who was
a Knight of the Shire for Northampton in 5H5 (1418), and who, by an
unnamed wife had a son Sir John Middleton of Belsay who was Sheriff of
Northumberland in 1461 and a Knight of the Shire in 1473

They there, do not name his wife, but she must be that "Anne or
Elizabeth" Ogle eldest daughter of Sir Robert Ogle by his wife Maud
Grey and widow of Sir William Heron who d 1 Sep 1425.

So any children by this union must have been born after 1425, but by
at most 1457 when Anne would have been at least 48.

This chart continues by showing that the Second son of this last Sir
John Middleton, was a Thomas Middleton who had a son William Middleton
who had a son Thomas Middleton who had a son Robert Middleton, esq of
Belsay Castle. This last one ob 11 May 1628.

This chart also tells us that John Middleton and Christian were also
the parents of that Thomas Middleton of Silksworth (living there in
1415) who married a Hayton heiress unnamed and by this union had a son
Thomas Middleton of Silksworth (which is in Durham), who married Ellen
Tempest and were the parents of that Gilbert Middleton, Mayor of
Newcastle in 1530.

The pedigree goes on and on for at least 15 generations, I only give a
snippet above.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 03:40:46

"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

Renia

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av Renia » 08 des 2007 03:46:02

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.

Peter Stewart

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 04:02:19

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fjd0h7$kcc$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
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.

So I was teaching a grandmother(-to-be?) how to suck eggs - I don't remember
ever trying to open one of his, but there is now so much material digitised
by Google of possible relevance here that it is worth telling new readers
from time to time how best to access it.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bill Arnold -- A Possible Poge Descendant

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 des 2007 04:57:00

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

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

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.

Like SEVEN. -- DSH

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.

Gjest

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 05:17:02

Dear Renia,
No, I`m not a subscriber to Google books and I browsed
through several, being denied access to a number. I typed in john middleton of
belsay in the google book search box and viewed several tying him to Christian,
(d 2 Henry V) daughter of John de Strivelyn who was elsewhere mentioned as his
daughter by Barnaba, sister of Adam de Swinburne who died in 20 Edward II
(1326), and daughter of Adam de Swinburne of East Swinburne who a in a pedigree
in " A Memoir of Reverend John Hodgson of Hartburn is stated to have died in
13 Edward II and by wife Margaret who was from Laverton, Cumberland had 2 sons
Henry and Adam and 3 daughters co-heir Christian married Widdrington,
Barnaba married John, Baron Strivelyn and Elizabeth who married Heron, In The
Stirlings of Craigbernard and Glorat by Joseph Bain, the author indicates tat
Jacoba de Emildon was the mother of John de Strivelyn by an earlier John de
Strivelyn and that her son was the husband of Barnaba de Swinburne. I seen to
recall some chronology problems with the idea that Jacoba was the second wife of
Christian (Strivelyn) Middleton`s father in that she (Jacoba) predeceased his
1st wife Barnaba de Swinburne.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart Is Not His Real Name?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 des 2007 05:17:18

Renia seems to think "Peter" can be a biatch [sic].

Yes, that's certainly true...

That's one reason why he has so many hissy fits.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bill Arnold -- A Possible Poge Descendant

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 des 2007 05:18:46

Well...

The blood is certainly in the water...

And it's Pogue Arnold's blood.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Hal Bradley

RE: Gramma's AT

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 08 des 2007 05:26:07

Walter Goodwin Davis' "The Ancestry of Bethia Harris, 1748-1833" provides
the Reade & Cooke ancestry. Elizabeth Cooke was aunt to Joseph Cooke of
Cambridge, Massachusetts & Pebmarsh, England.

Hal Bradley

-----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

Gjest

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MESS

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 05:51:02

On Dec 7, 1:25 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

*****

____________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Now, as to the specific complaint, what is and is not libel is, I
guess, for a jury to decide. The same would be true for the degree to
which incorrect information represents a lie, and also to which a
published author represents a public individual. Further, the issues
of the degree to which the publisher of an advertisement is legally
responsible for its content (an issue in American jurisprudence that
goes back to the Adams' Sedition Act and Webster v Haswell),
particularly when the content itself is not actionable, but only
directs people to other content elsewhere, could be litigated. There
is, however, an important mechanistic aspect that needs to be
addressed. Specifically, Mr. Johnson is not submitting his posts to
GEN-MEDIEVAL. He is submitting them to the Google board,
soc.genealogy.medieval, and Google is then placing them into the
USENET newsgroup soc.genealogy.medieval, and then the RootsWeb gateway
server is placing them into GEN-MEDIEVAL, all of these transactions
being beyond the control of the listowners. I bring this up because
there is an important legal difference between being a conduit vs
managing content - the former is the model in operation for material
submitted through soc.gen.med, as no filtering at all takes place.

In other words, while the listowners could tell Mr. Johnson that he
should not post pointers to his web site on GEN-MEDIEVAL, this would
be rather pointless since he is currently posting nothing to GEN-
MEDIEVAL at all - the posts are appearing there through the actions of
various computers that neither he nor the listowners have the
slightest control over.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bill Arnold -- A Possible Poge Descendant

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 des 2007 06:23:32

'Methinks Pogue Arnold has REALLY made an ass of himself on this issue of
alleged LIBEL against him -- far and beyond any of his previous absurdities,
stupidities and transgressions -- of which there are a hilarious multitude.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: The medieval Burley family of Shropshire and Herefordshi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 06:34:27

"Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.418.1197062285.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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,

Good for you, Kay.

With real experts at work in SLC, like yourself, Paul Reed and Neil
Thompson, it's a mystery that Douglas Richardson hasn't picked up some
useful tips on research methods and diligence from watching you across the
library table, waiting to follow you at the photocopier, etc. I'm sure he
must have picked up some other side-benefits for himself by doing this, but
not yet the lesson of honest and self-sufficient work obviously.

Peter Stewart

Don Stone

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MESS

Legg inn av Don Stone » 08 des 2007 06:59:34

Bill Arnold wrote:
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.


To help you better understand how this list/group functions, you might
look at the first two links at http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/. Your
lawyer would presumably also be interested in this information.

-- Don Stone

Gjest

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MESS

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 07:20:02

On Dec 7, 8:49 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
[snip]

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]


It seems clear that, in the current state of the combined/connected
world of the Gen-Medieval mailing list and the soc-gen-med newsgroup,
this is no longer a forum for medieval genealogy. Since participants
obviously cannot be counted on to moderate themselves, some degree of
imposed control would seem to be necessary if this forum is to have
any value at all.

One idea that comes to mind is to shut down the gateway between SGM
and Gen-Med - a gateway that is apparently under the control of
Rootsweb. Although some of the current trash is no doubt coming from
(a few) Gen-Med participants, it seems that most of it (and probably
all the cross-posting) is coming from the SGM side. If the Rootsweb
mailing list were isolated from Usenet (as other Rootsweb lists are),
the list administrators could, if necessary, exercise their discretion
to unsubscribe troublesome individuals, without being concerned that
barred individuals would enter through a back door. I'm not
suggesting full content moderation - simply some judicious policing of
the most egregious troublemakers.

Admittedly some participants from the SGM side whose contributions may
be of value would have to adapt to a different method of contributing
and receiving information in the forum, and some would perhaps choose
not to make the switch. But this could be a small but necessary price
to pay to improve the present situation.

Any thoughts? Or other ideas on salvaging this forum?

[BTW: Do gateways to/from Usenet exist for any other Rootsweb mailing
lists? If not, why should this one continue to have one?]

wjhonson

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MESS

Legg inn av wjhonson » 08 des 2007 07:35:03

This has always been, and will always be, a forum for both medieval
genealogy and nere do wells whose only purpose is to disrupt. People
have and have always had, the choice of getting those messages in
emails and deleting them without reading, or using the newsgroup where
you can simply not read those threads.

Disconnecting the newsgroups from the email list isn't going to solve
that problem. You'll still get people who post 600 messages without
ever discussing anything substantive.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 09:10:04

On Dec 8, 3:18 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bill Arnold -- A Possible Poge Descendant

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 des 2007 09:31:06

Fat Chance.

It's widely spread by now and could easily be reposted.

Secondly:

Arnold, perhaps a descendant of Benedict Arnold, or a relative [as well as a
possible Poge descendant] -- is too proud to sign a Self Denying Ordinance.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<david11000carca@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:21f416e5-bec9-4135-97d1-e51b94ec5ccf@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

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

Peter Stewart

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MESS

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2007 10:17:22

"wjhonson" <wjhonson@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. Indeed the whole
tit-for-tat procedure out of the newsgroup and the motives for this seem
unnecessary to me.

In addition, though I think him a liar when it suits him and a fool at all
other times, it was obvious enough to me that Arnold did not mean the stuff
about being "strafed, dug in, in a mud trench on the beach of Mt. Suribachi"
to be taken literally - why on earth would a real veteran ask a woman why
she didn't come to his aid during the battle of Iwo Jima, or anyone else
except in a peculiar rhetorical jest?

Peter Stewart

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: AN OPEN LETTER ...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 08 des 2007 13:47:18

In article
<21f416e5-bec9-4135-97d1-e51b94ec5ccf@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
david11000carca@yahoo.fr wrote:

How about a compromise.

The factual Wikipedia biography of Arnold is taken down. "Bill"
Arnold publicly undertakes NEVER to post again on SGM.

I think the Vulgate passage from Mark was a valedictory one
anyway--isn't it about shaking the dust from your feet when you leave?
If so--Deo gracias.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MESS

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 15:15:04

On Dec 7, 10:18 pm, jhiggins...@yahoo.com wrote:

Any thoughts?

Many of the substantive posts also come from the s.g.m side, and while
you suggest that the contributors would have to modify the ma nner in
which they post this is not liekly to happen, rather they wil continue
to post to s.g.m, and their contributions will be lost to GEN-MED.

[BTW: Do gateways to/from Usenet exist for any other Rootsweb mailing
lists? If not, why should this one continue to have one?]

Gateways exist for a dozen groups, and they all suffer, to a greater
or lesser degree, from the same problems.

taf

Gjest

Re: How many John Middletons ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 15:20:04

Dear Will,
I believe I found the Middleton of Belsay pedigree you spoke
of. It does seem to give John`s father as a Robert Middleton who died 1335 and
his grandfather as a Richard Middleton who died in 1293. there was a Richard
Middleton who held Belsay which was taken from the family when his grandson
Gilbert Middleton rebelled againest King Edward II. Edward III then
apparently gave it to John de Strivelyn, who was summoned as a Baron by Edward III
1335- died after 1343, his son John de Strivelyn was summoned as Baron from 1364-
1371 who married Barnaba de Swinburne their daughter Christain de Strivelyn
who died 5 Henry V (not 2 as I previously gave) (1417 /18) was the wife of Sir
John Middleton, who was perhaps a kinsman of the Gilbert Middleton from whom
Belsay was taken.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. MES

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2007 16:01:03

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

Don Stone

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER O F GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL. ME

Legg inn av Don Stone » 08 des 2007 16:59:05

taf@clearwire.net wrote:
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


Well said, Peter and Todd.

However, if the bull in the china shop complains, after his rampage,
that some people are paying too much attention to him, he shouldn't be
surprised if he doesn't get a lot of sympathy (or legal satisfaction).

-- Don Stone

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»