Discussion:
So little Peter Stewart (Re: Possible Davidic and Gupta Descent to Russian Nobility)
(too old to reply)
i***@club-internet.fr
2017-08-03 13:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px">‌</span>Somebody wondered a few years ago about the disappearance of this forum of the scholars who frequented it formerly. So that it does not stay any more here, as really competent about the Early Middle Ages, than Todd Farmerie and Peter Stewart.<br>
The reason is simple&nbsp;: nobody feels pleasure to be offended throughout messages by the great ayatollah of the medieval genealogy&nbsp;: Peter Stewart himself, who in his obsessional frenzy, tries to convince all the members of this forum that he alone holds the truth on what is the medieval genealogy. I’have no problem to be criticized. Sometimes, for good reasons, sometimes not. One can say also that he don’t think that onomastic is a good methodology for genealogical constructions. And I don’t discuss either Peter Stewart’s indisputable culture. But perpetual insults are other things. Periodically, some members of this forum send me privatly some of his injurious messages and ask me&nbsp;: is he right&nbsp;? Now, I say&nbsp;: not at all&nbsp;! This rigorous guardian of the Temple constantly utter its contempt for people whose does not share his mind. If he was right, you would see no more genealogical table in any scholarly book or article since a long time. Regrettably, it is not the case, so he is wrong definitively (or he is right alone … like crazies&nbsp;?).&nbsp;Thank goodness, internationnal scientific communauty don’t share his narrow-mindedness. As in any research, there are different opinions and academic debate.<br>
Thus, do not be abused by his ceaseless insults: yelling at others is by no mean being right, nor by offending great historians who occasionally made mistake on such minor point, and to whom he will never hold a candle. On the contrary: intransigence rarely rhymes with intelligence. If what I write is not worth the ink to write it, I would say so much of Peter Stewart's immortal work. And he certainly doesn’t deserve the time I’m wasting to write this. You will always learn something in my books even if you removed all the hypothetical material, and far more from the historians he tramples. But, to my knowledge, little Peter wrote only a single thing: a short booklet where he defends an erroneous thesis as well as uncountable messages on this forum which will doubtless constitute the whole work of its life (good for us). These messages consist for a good third in insults to his interlocutors or in testimonies of contempt to the historians who made use of the onomastics. Make them be taken for fools by ridiculous simplifications is only intellectual dishonesty. The other third are corrections of its previous own messages, written too fast in its haste to answer and where he realizes whether he wrote absurdities, or whether he missed essential works. Finally, the last third consists of excellent references who indeed allow him to correct triumphantly by a day or two, a date of birth, of death or of reign. Except that almost all of his references were found on Internet, and thus could have been able supplied by whoever would have made the effort to look. In any case, I taught nothing from him most of time and I would have been able on the contrary to add often better references … not on internet.<br>
In brief, I’m sending back to this guy the contempt which was given to me, but I shall be careful not to begin a polemic not to risk to deprive you of his presence. So, I don’t intend to answer to lies or new insults wich could come from now. Moreover, you all know that when things turn in his disadvantage, little Peter runs by crying to take refuge in his ivory tower by swearing that we never shall see him again here. What a loss for the science! No, feel reassured, as he keeps following the debates in the shade and intervenes under masked identities before daring to stand out in broad daylight again.<br>
It’s pathetic&nbsp;! He’s pathetic&nbsp;!!!<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Quelqu’un s’est désolé il y a quelques années de la disparition du forum des érudits qui le fréquentaient autrefois. De sorte qu’il ne reste plus comme vraiment compétent sur ce site à propos du moyen âge que Todd Farmerie et Peter Stewart. La raison en est simple, personne n’éprouve de plaisir à se faire insulter à longueur de mail par le grand ayatollah de la généalogie médiévale&nbsp;: Peter Stewart lui même, qui dans son délire obsessionnel, cherche à convaincre tous les membres de ce forum que lui seul détient la vérité sur ce qu’est la généalogie médiévale. Je n'ai pas de problème à être critiqué ou discuté: cela arrive souvent et c'est quelquefois justifié, d'autre fois non. On peut aussi affirmer que l’on ne croit pas que l’onomastique soit d’un bon usage dans la reconstruction généalogique. Et je ne discute pas non plus l’incontestable culture de Peter Stewart. Mais les insultes perpétuelles, c'est une autre chose. Périodiquement, certains membres de ce forum m’adressent de façon privée certains de ces messages injurieux et me demandent de réagir. A-t-il raison&nbsp;? Aujourd’hui, je réponds&nbsp;: non, certainement pas&nbsp;! Ce Gardien du Temple rigoureux abreuve continuellement ce site de son mépris pour les gens dont il ne partage pas la vision. S’il avait raison, vous ne verriez plus aucun tableau généalogique dans aucun livre ou article scientifique depuis longtemps. Hélas, ce n’est pas le cas, il a donc définitivement tort (ou il est seul avoir raison, comme les fous&nbsp;?). Fort heureusement, la communauté scientifique internationale ne partage pas son étroitesse d'esprit. Comme dans toutes les sciences, il y a différentes opinions et des débats scientifiques.<br>
Ne vous laissez donc pas abuser par ses insultes incessantes&nbsp;: ce n’est pas en criant plus fort que l’on a raison, ni en insultant de grands historiens qui ont pu à l’occasion se tromper sur tel ou tel point mineur, et auxquels il n’arrivera jamais à la cheville. Au contraire&nbsp;: intransigeance rime rarement avec intelligence. Si ce que j’écris ne vaut pas l’encre pour l’écrire, j’en dirais autant de l’œuvre impérissable de Peter Stewart. Et il ne mérite certainement pas le temps que je perds à écrire ceci. Vous apprendrez toujours quelque chose dans mes livres même si on enlevait toute la matière hypothétique, et beaucoup plus encore chez tous les historiens qu’il piétine. Mais, à ma connaissance, petit Peter n’a écrit, lui, qu’une seule chose&nbsp;: un court opuscule où il défend une thèse de toute évidence erronée et des messages innombrables sur ce forum qui constitueront sans doute l’œuvre de sa vie (tant mieux pour nous tous). Ces messages consistent pour un bon tiers en insultes envers ses interlocuteurs ou en témoignages de mépris envers les historiens qui ont fait usage de l’onomastique. Les faire passer pour des imbéciles en simplifiant à l’extrême n’est que de la malhonnêteté intellectuelle. Pour l’autre tiers, il s’agit de corrections de ses propres messages précédents, écrits trop vite dans sa hâte de répondre et où il se rend compte, soit qu’il a écrit n’importe quoi, soit qu’il a raté des travaux essentiels. Enfin, le dernier tiers se compose de référence excellentes qui lui permettent en effet de triomphalement corriger d’un jour ou deux une date de naissance, de mort ou de règne. A ceci prêt que la quasi-totalité de ses références sont uniquement trouvées sur internet, et donc auraient pu être fournies par n’importe qui aurait un peu prit la peine de chercher. En tout cas, moi, je n’y ai pour ainsi dire jamais rien appris et j’aurais pu au contraire lui en apprendre souvent ... mais pas sur internet.<br>
Bref, je renvoie à ce type le mépris qu’il m’accorde, mais je me garderai d’entamer une polémique pour ne pas risquer de vous en priver. Je n’ai pas l’intention de répondre aux mensonges ou nouvelles insultes qui pourrait suivre ce message. De toute façon, vous savez tous que, lorsque les choses tournent à son désavantage, petit Peter court en pleurant se réfugier dans sa tour d’ivoire en jurant qu’on en le reverra plus ici. Quelle perte pour la science&nbsp;! Non, rassurez-vous, en vérité il continue de suivre les débats dans l’ombre et intervient sous des identités masquées avant d’oser ressortir au grand jour.<br>
C’est Pitoyable&nbsp;! Il est pitoyable&nbsp;!!!<br>
<br>
Christian Settipani<br>
‌<br>
De : ***@optusnet.com.au<br>
A : gen-***@rootsweb.com<br>
Envoyé: jeudi 3 août 2017 04:18<br>
Objet : Re: Possible Davidic and Gupta Descent to Russian Nobility<br>
<br>
<br>
On 03-Aug-17 11:11 AM, taf wrote:<br>
&gt; On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 5:57:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I'm still trying to understand how much of a distinction there really is<br>
&gt;&gt; between these kinds of worthlessness. I agree completely about the<br>
&gt;&gt; Hughes approach, but the implicitly lesser degree of worthlessness in<br>
&gt;&gt; the other is questionable.<br>
&gt; Well, as I see it, one is making wishful-thinking connections between real people. Their hypotheses may be credulous, but at least you can see how they got there even if you think they are grossly over-interpreting things. Hughes, if you remember, had a pedigree tracing from the King of Atlantis, split people in two to deal with sources that gave alternative ancestry to the same person, etc., and as I said, was adamantly opposed any kind of evaluation of the lines he was put together. Maybe they are differences in degree, rather than kind, but I m not going to view Hughes and Settipani as equivalent in their failings.<br>
<br>
I certainly agree with the last point, but Settipani is not the issue.<br>
He is now focused on Hellenic genealogy, that as far as I know was his<br>
starting point in genealogy and probably in his search for DFAs. I think<br>
he makes some gross misjudgements that set off some of his speculative<br>
pursuits, that he is too eager to read evidence into legends, that his<br>
over-reliance on onomastics shades into absurdity, and that some of his<br>
'possibilities' are not worth the ink to print them, but he is not by<br>
any means an unhinged fantasist.<br>
<br>
Peter Stewart<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message<br>
&nbsp;
j***@gmail.com
2017-08-03 13:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mr settipani, is there perhaps a gap in you reading of English? Mr. Stewart wrote a post defending you against an insult, and you react as if he made the insult.
Joe c
Ian Goddard
2017-08-03 13:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;
Please respect Usenet conventions and use plain text, not HTML.
--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk
wjhonson
2017-08-03 15:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What booklet did Peter Stewart write?
r***@yahoo.com
2017-08-03 16:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I think it was something from 2009 called "Origin and Early Generations of the Tosny Family."
Hans Vogels
2017-08-03 18:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px">‌</span>Somebody wondered a few years ago about the disappearance of this forum of the scholars who frequented it formerly. So that it does not stay any more here, as really competent about the Early Middle Ages, than Todd Farmerie and Peter Stewart.<br>
The reason is simple&nbsp;: nobody feels pleasure to be offended throughout messages by the great ayatollah of the medieval genealogy&nbsp;: Peter Stewart himself, who in his obsessional frenzy, tries to convince all the members of this forum that he alone holds the truth on what is the medieval genealogy. I’have no problem to be criticized. Sometimes, for good reasons, sometimes not. One can say also that he don’t think that onomastic is a good methodology for genealogical constructions. And I don’t discuss either Peter Stewart’s indisputable culture. But perpetual insults are other things. Periodically, some members of this forum send me privatly some of his injurious messages and ask me&nbsp;: is he right&nbsp;? Now, I say&nbsp;: not at all&nbsp;! This rigorous guardian of the Temple constantly utter its contempt for people whose does not share his mind. If he was right, you would see no more genealogical table in any scholarly book or article since a long time. Regrettably, it is not the case, so he is wrong definitively (or he is right alone … like crazies&nbsp;?).&nbsp;Thank goodness, internationnal scientific communauty don’t share his narrow-mindedness. As in any research, there are different opinions and academic debate.<br>
Thus, do not be abused by his ceaseless insults: yelling at others is by no mean being right, nor by offending great historians who occasionally made mistake on such minor point, and to whom he will never hold a candle. On the contrary: intransigence rarely rhymes with intelligence. If what I write is not worth the ink to write it, I would say so much of Peter Stewart's immortal work. And he certainly doesn’t deserve the time I’m wasting to write this. You will always learn something in my books even if you removed all the hypothetical material, and far more from the historians he tramples. But, to my knowledge, little Peter wrote only a single thing: a short booklet where he defends an erroneous thesis as well as uncountable messages on this forum which will doubtless constitute the whole work of its life (good for us). These messages consist for a good third in insults to his interlocutors or in testimonies of contempt to the historians who made use of the onomastics. Make them be taken for fools by ridiculous simplifications is only intellectual dishonesty. The other third are corrections of its previous own messages, written too fast in its haste to answer and where he realizes whether he wrote absurdities, or whether he missed essential works. Finally, the last third consists of excellent references who indeed allow him to correct triumphantly by a day or two, a date of birth, of death or of reign. Except that almost all of his references were found on Internet, and thus could have been able supplied by whoever would have made the effort to look. In any case, I taught nothing from him most of time and I would have been able on the contrary to add often better references … not on internet.<br>
In brief, I’m sending back to this guy the contempt which was given to me, but I shall be careful not to begin a polemic not to risk to deprive you of his presence. So, I don’t intend to answer to lies or new insults wich could come from now. Moreover, you all know that when things turn in his disadvantage, little Peter runs by crying to take refuge in his ivory tower by swearing that we never shall see him again here. What a loss for the science! No, feel reassured, as he keeps following the debates in the shade and intervenes under masked identities before daring to stand out in broad daylight again.<br>
It’s pathetic&nbsp;! He’s pathetic&nbsp;!!!<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Quelqu’un s’est désolé il y a quelques années de la disparition du forum des érudits qui le fréquentaient autrefois. De sorte qu’il ne reste plus comme vraiment compétent sur ce site à propos du moyen âge que Todd Farmerie et Peter Stewart. La raison en est simple, personne n’éprouve de plaisir à se faire insulter à longueur de mail par le grand ayatollah de la généalogie médiévale&nbsp;: Peter Stewart lui même, qui dans son délire obsessionnel, cherche à convaincre tous les membres de ce forum que lui seul détient la vérité sur ce qu’est la généalogie médiévale. Je n'ai pas de problème à être critiqué ou discuté: cela arrive souvent et c'est quelquefois justifié, d'autre fois non. On peut aussi affirmer que l’on ne croit pas que l’onomastique soit d’un bon usage dans la reconstruction généalogique. Et je ne discute pas non plus l’incontestable culture de Peter Stewart. Mais les insultes perpétuelles, c'est une autre chose. Périodiquement, certains membres de ce forum m’adressent de façon privée certains de ces messages injurieux et me demandent de réagir. A-t-il raison&nbsp;? Aujourd’hui, je réponds&nbsp;: non, certainement pas&nbsp;! Ce Gardien du Temple rigoureux abreuve continuellement ce site de son mépris pour les gens dont il ne partage pas la vision. S’il avait raison, vous ne verriez plus aucun tableau généalogique dans aucun livre ou article scientifique depuis longtemps. Hélas, ce n’est pas le cas, il a donc définitivement tort (ou il est seul avoir raison, comme les fous&nbsp;?). Fort heureusement, la communauté scientifique internationale ne partage pas son étroitesse d'esprit. Comme dans toutes les sciences, il y a différentes opinions et des débats scientifiques.<br>
Ne vous laissez donc pas abuser par ses insultes incessantes&nbsp;: ce n’est pas en criant plus fort que l’on a raison, ni en insultant de grands historiens qui ont pu à l’occasion se tromper sur tel ou tel point mineur, et auxquels il n’arrivera jamais à la cheville. Au contraire&nbsp;: intransigeance rime rarement avec intelligence. Si ce que j’écris ne vaut pas l’encre pour l’écrire, j’en dirais autant de l’œuvre impérissable de Peter Stewart. Et il ne mérite certainement pas le temps que je perds à écrire ceci. Vous apprendrez toujours quelque chose dans mes livres même si on enlevait toute la matière hypothétique, et beaucoup plus encore chez tous les historiens qu’il piétine. Mais, à ma connaissance, petit Peter n’a écrit, lui, qu’une seule chose&nbsp;: un court opuscule où il défend une thèse de toute évidence erronée et des messages innombrables sur ce forum qui constitueront sans doute l’œuvre de sa vie (tant mieux pour nous tous). Ces messages consistent pour un bon tiers en insultes envers ses interlocuteurs ou en témoignages de mépris envers les historiens qui ont fait usage de l’onomastique. Les faire passer pour des imbéciles en simplifiant à l’extrême n’est que de la malhonnêteté intellectuelle. Pour l’autre tiers, il s’agit de corrections de ses propres messages précédents, écrits trop vite dans sa hâte de répondre et où il se rend compte, soit qu’il a écrit n’importe quoi, soit qu’il a raté des travaux essentiels. Enfin, le dernier tiers se compose de référence excellentes qui lui permettent en effet de triomphalement corriger d’un jour ou deux une date de naissance, de mort ou de règne. A ceci prêt que la quasi-totalité de ses références sont uniquement trouvées sur internet, et donc auraient pu être fournies par n’importe qui aurait un peu prit la peine de chercher. En tout cas, moi, je n’y ai pour ainsi dire jamais rien appris et j’aurais pu au contraire lui en apprendre souvent ... mais pas sur internet.<br>
Bref, je renvoie à ce type le mépris qu’il m’accorde, mais je me garderai d’entamer une polémique pour ne pas risquer de vous en priver. Je n’ai pas l’intention de répondre aux mensonges ou nouvelles insultes qui pourrait suivre ce message. De toute façon, vous savez tous que, lorsque les choses tournent à son désavantage, petit Peter court en pleurant se réfugier dans sa tour d’ivoire en jurant qu’on en le reverra plus ici. Quelle perte pour la science&nbsp;! Non, rassurez-vous, en vérité il continue de suivre les débats dans l’ombre et intervient sous des identités masquées avant d’oser ressortir au grand jour.<br>
C’est Pitoyable&nbsp;! Il est pitoyable&nbsp;!!!<br>
<br>
Christian Settipani<br>
‌<br>
Envoyé: jeudi 3 août 2017 04:18<br>
Objet : Re: Possible Davidic and Gupta Descent to Russian Nobility<br>
<br>
<br>
On 03-Aug-17 11:11 AM, taf wrote:<br>
&gt; On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 5:57:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I'm still trying to understand how much of a distinction there really is<br>
&gt;&gt; between these kinds of worthlessness. I agree completely about the<br>
&gt;&gt; Hughes approach, but the implicitly lesser degree of worthlessness in<br>
&gt;&gt; the other is questionable.<br>
&gt; Well, as I see it, one is making wishful-thinking connections between real people. Their hypotheses may be credulous, but at least you can see how they got there even if you think they are grossly over-interpreting things. Hughes, if you remember, had a pedigree tracing from the King of Atlantis, split people in two to deal with sources that gave alternative ancestry to the same person, etc., and as I said, was adamantly opposed any kind of evaluation of the lines he was put together. Maybe they are differences in degree, rather than kind, but I m not going to view Hughes and Settipani as equivalent in their failings.<br>
<br>
I certainly agree with the last point, but Settipani is not the issue.<br>
He is now focused on Hellenic genealogy, that as far as I know was his<br>
starting point in genealogy and probably in his search for DFAs. I think<br>
he makes some gross misjudgements that set off some of his speculative<br>
pursuits, that he is too eager to read evidence into legends, that his<br>
over-reliance on onomastics shades into absurdity, and that some of his<br>
'possibilities' are not worth the ink to print them, but he is not by<br>
any means an unhinged fantasist.<br>
<br>
Peter Stewart<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
&nbsp;
Out of the blue that is certainly something one does not easily forget. I'm not French minded but I can follow his line of reasoning. When you're long enough around you know how Peter functions. He has his moments and if you don't like it, just sigh and think of the Monty Python song "Always look on the bright side of life" because he provides information from and analysis on sources that are not common knowledge.

Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2017-08-03 23:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
When you're long enough around you know how Peter functions. He has
his moments and if you don't like it, just sigh and think of the Monty
Python song "Always look on the bright side of life"
You can also hold Peter Stewart to account for any and every statement
he makes here - as you have done, Hans, when I was ill-tempered in
response to your probing.

The newsgroup and its archive are a perfectly legitimate venue for
sharing and recording information as well as opinions. Publishing may be
necessary for academics with careers to make and CVs to fill out, but it
is not a requirement for amateurs who choose to express their views or
try to be helpful here.

My paper on the early generations of the Tosny family was not submitted
for publication because I don't think it was worth printing, and because
its format is not suitable for the page anyway - it is repetitive and
overly-sourced for most purposes. I have hundreds of similar files, some
of them vastly longer and more detailed, that may or may not ever see
the light of exposure on the internet (that they were not designed for
in the first place), but that will certainly not be printed.

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2017-08-05 08:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
My paper on the early generations of the Tosny family was not submitted
for publication because I don't think it was worth printing, and because
its format is not suitable for the page anyway - it is repetitive and
overly-sourced for most purposes. I have hundreds of similar files, some
of them vastly longer and more detailed, that may or may not ever see
the light of exposure on the internet (that they were not designed for
in the first place), but that will certainly not be printed.
Peter Stewart
Have you or anyone else for that matter, ever considered what happens to the collection of information when one passes away or one is not able to contribute anymore?

I have kids, but none is interested in my hobby. I publish but not as much as I would like. I still have years to fill before I retire. I have a room with books, articles, information, written notes on genealogy and history that would be useful for others. What happens with it when I'not around anymore?

In the past, I have seen personal collections donated to the local or regional Archives, at a time they wanted to acquire and expand. Nowadays it is all about money and running meters, information correctly accessible through an inventory. I doubt if they are still interested without raising but's. I have seen personal collections taken apart by anyone who fancied a piece, the heirs having no interest. The remainder went to the old paper collectors.

Has anyone given the future any thought?

Hans Vogels
Hans Vogels
2017-08-05 08:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
My paper on the early generations of the Tosny family was not submitted
for publication because I don't think it was worth printing, and because
its format is not suitable for the page anyway - it is repetitive and
overly-sourced for most purposes. I have hundreds of similar files, some
of them vastly longer and more detailed, that may or may not ever see
the light of exposure on the internet (that they were not designed for
in the first place), but that will certainly not be printed.
Peter Stewart
Have you or anyone else for that matter, ever considered what happens to the collection of information when one passes away or one is not able to contribute anymore?
I have kids, but none is interested in my hobby. I publish but not as much as I would like. I still have years to fill before I retire. I have a room with books, articles, information, written notes on genealogy and history that would be useful for others. What happens with it when I'not around anymore?
In the past, I have seen personal collections donated to the local or regional Archives, at a time they wanted to acquire and expand. Nowadays it is all about money and running meters, information correctly accessible through an inventory. I doubt if they are still interested without raising but's. I have seen personal collections taken apart by anyone who fancied a piece, the heirs having no interest. The remainder went to the old paper collectors.
Has anyone given the future any thought?
Hans Vogels
At the office, the answer would be digitalisation of the paperwork. :-)
Peter Stewart
2017-08-05 10:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
My paper on the early generations of the Tosny family was not submitted
for publication because I don't think it was worth printing, and because
its format is not suitable for the page anyway - it is repetitive and
overly-sourced for most purposes. I have hundreds of similar files, some
of them vastly longer and more detailed, that may or may not ever see
the light of exposure on the internet (that they were not designed for
in the first place), but that will certainly not be printed.
Peter Stewart
Have you or anyone else for that matter, ever considered what happens to the collection of information when one passes away or one is not able to contribute anymore?
No, Hans, I haven't given thought to this because I don't see my
collection of data as having value that would outlast me. My aim is just
to gather sources and assess their reliability, which anyone who puts in
the time can do. I haven't made (or tried to make) any new discoveries,
as I don't have access to documents that are not published or digitised.
I am disabled and practically house-bound now so that this will not change.

The best that my work could do for anyone else would be to save them the
trouble and effort I have gone to, but the future will surely take care
of that anyway with increased accessibility of the same material and
with much faster ways to analyse it. However, I do have a vast
collection of books and journal article copies that will go a public
library if wanted, or with my own writing to the rubbish tip if not.

Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2017-08-05 14:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Have you or anyone else for that matter, ever considered what happens to the collection of information when one passes away or one is not able to contribute anymore?
...
Post by Hans Vogels
Hans Vogels
One of my great great aunts collected family history information in the early 1990s. She died in 1943. In 1997, her (only and childless) son donated her notes to the Family History Library. The Family History Library made images of her notes on a set of microfiche. Perhaps one could ask what the current policy of the Family History Library is on accepting such collections and if they would be interested in notes about family relationships of people living in the early to middle medieval period.
CE Wood
2017-08-05 20:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Depending on what is in one's collection, many institutions are interested in acquiring. Having gateway ancestors who were well-known in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the NEHGR asked me to donate my genealogical database, collection of photos daguerreotypes, glass slides, etc., as well as original documents, correspondence, personal journals, medals and awards, et alia, from all over the world.

For a monetary donation, the amount determined when I agreed and paid over several year period or when I die, they will organize whatever I have not been able to, and will restore, preserve, and digitize all.

My task is to identify the individuals mentioned, connected to, or shown in the media.

Unfortunately, they cannot store my house full of centuries old ancestral items of a larger nature.

It is well-worth searching for a similar organization.

CE Wood
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
My paper on the early generations of the Tosny family was not submitted
for publication because I don't think it was worth printing, and because
its format is not suitable for the page anyway - it is repetitive and
overly-sourced for most purposes. I have hundreds of similar files, some
of them vastly longer and more detailed, that may or may not ever see
the light of exposure on the internet (that they were not designed for
in the first place), but that will certainly not be printed.
Peter Stewart
Have you or anyone else for that matter, ever considered what happens to the collection of information when one passes away or one is not able to contribute anymore?
I have kids, but none is interested in my hobby. I publish but not as much as I would like. I still have years to fill before I retire. I have a room with books, articles, information, written notes on genealogy and history that would be useful for others. What happens with it when I'not around anymore?
In the past, I have seen personal collections donated to the local or regional Archives, at a time they wanted to acquire and expand. Nowadays it is all about money and running meters, information correctly accessible through an inventory. I doubt if they are still interested without raising but's. I have seen personal collections taken apart by anyone who fancied a piece, the heirs having no interest. The remainder went to the old paper collectors.
Has anyone given the future any thought?
Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2017-08-03 22:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I wonder if this unduly generalised and personalised screed is the
result of a 'hack' of someone's email address, or an actual tantrum from
loss of sense and dignity...
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px">‌</span>Somebody wondered a few years ago about the disappearance of this forum of the scholars who frequented it formerly. So that it does not stay any more here, as really competent about the Early Middle Ages, than Todd Farmerie and Peter Stewart.<br>
The reason is simple&nbsp;: nobody feels pleasure to be offended throughout messages by the great ayatollah of the medieval genealogy&nbsp;: Peter Stewart himself, who in his obsessional frenzy, tries to convince all the members of this forum that he alone holds the truth on what is the medieval genealogy. I’have no problem to be criticized. Sometimes, for good reasons, sometimes not. One can say also that he don’t think that onomastic is a good methodology for genealogical constructions. And I don’t discuss either Peter Stewart’s indisputable culture. But perpetual insults are other things. Periodically, some members of this forum send me privatly some of his injurious messages and ask me&nbsp;: is he right&nbsp;? Now, I say&nbsp;: not at all&nbsp;!
Then by all means demonstrate the errors, and use your expertise to be
as specific as the criticism you are railing against - that is the point
of an internet newsgroup such as this.
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
This rigorous guardian of the Temple constantly utter its contempt for people whose does not share his mind. If he was right, you would see no more genealogical table in any scholarly book or article since a long time. Regrettably, it is not the case, so he is wrong definitively (or he is right alone … like crazies&nbsp;?).&nbsp;Thank goodness, internationnal scientific communauty don’t share his narrow-mindedness. As in any research, there are different opinions and academic debate.<br>
Different opinions are welcome here. Their basis is examined here.
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
Thus, do not be abused by his ceaseless insults: yelling at others is by no mean being right, nor by offending great historians who occasionally made mistake on such minor point, and to whom he will never hold a candle.
Great historians? Has Donald Trump done the hacking today?
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
On the contrary: intransigence rarely rhymes with intelligence. If what I write is not worth the ink to write it, I would say so much of Peter Stewart's immortal work. And he certainly doesn’t deserve the time I’m wasting to write this. You will always learn something in my books even if you removed all the hypothetical material, and far more from the historians he tramples.
I wrote that some of Christian Settiani's 'possibilities' are not worth
the ink to print them - not by any means the same as that what he writes
is not worth the ink to write it. Great historians start from being
great readers.
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
But, to my knowledge, little Peter wrote only a single thing: a short booklet where he defends an erroneous thesis as well as uncountable messages on this forum which will doubtless constitute the whole work of its life (good for us).
Any erroneous thesis I have put out is open to criticism. Mere
characterisation doesn't cut it.
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
These messages consist for a good third in insults to his interlocutors or in testimonies of contempt to the historians who made use of the onomastics. Make them be taken for fools by ridiculous simplifications is only intellectual dishonesty.
Then exercise intellectual honesty by trying to debunk these 'ridiculous
simplicifactions' with actual argument.
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
The other third are corrections of its previous own messages, written too fast in its haste to answer and where he realizes whether he wrote absurdities, or whether he missed essential works.
Or where he recognises the difference between an internet newsgroup and
going into print - anyone can instantly correct or criticise my posts
here, including myself. When I make mistakes I admit them as quickly and
directly as I can, rater than making pent-up and hysterical outbursts at
great but foggy length.
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
Finally, the last third consists of excellent references who indeed allow him to correct triumphantly by a day or two, a date of birth, of death or of reign. Except that almost all of his references were found on Internet, and thus could have been able supplied by whoever would have made the effort to look.
Much of the source material for medieval genealogy in the era of
interest to me (ca 750-ca 1250) can now be found on the internet, where
indeed it can be found by anyone who makes the effort to look. Much
source material and literature is not available online. Making the
effort to find it, wherever it may be, is equally sensible proceeding as
far as I can see.
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
In any case, I taught nothing from him most of time and I would have been able on the contrary to add often better references … not on internet.<br>
Add away.
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
In brief, I’m sending back to this guy the contempt which was given to me, but I shall be careful not to begin a polemic
Too late now.
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
not to risk to deprive you of his presence. So, I don’t intend to answer to lies or new insults wich could come from now.
Lies? Seriously?
Post by i***@club-internet.fr
Moreover, you all know that when things turn in his disadvantage, little Peter runs by crying to take refuge in his ivory tower by swearing that we never shall see him again here. What a loss for the science! No, feel reassured, as he keeps following the debates in the shade and intervenes under masked identities before daring to stand out in broad daylight again.<br>
It’s pathetic&nbsp;! He’s pathetic&nbsp;!!!<br>
I have never used a masked identity - every post of mine since I started
here has been signed Peter Stewart. I assume this refers to emails from
me that were reposted or extensively quoted by Leo Van de Pas - but his
identity was not masked, and like anyone else he was entitled to use an
anonymous source. I do this too when someone corresponds with me
off-list: if they wanted, they could post here, but when they choose not
to do so it is not my prerogative to name them.

From my past opinion of Christian Settipani I find it hard to credit
that he would make such a fool of himself as in this diatribe. I hope
the man himself (if this blather wasn't from him) will take the
opportunity to correct the record.

Peter Stewart
r***@yahoo.com
2017-08-04 17:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Great historians? Has Donald Trump done the hacking today?
Well, it seems indisputable that M. Settipani is a "greater" historian than Peter Stewart (_if_ that is his true name).

Unless Peter wishes to allow us a peek at his "hundreds" of articles hidden away until finished (or fixed) ...
taf
2017-08-04 19:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Great historians? Has Donald Trump done the hacking today?
Well, it seems indisputable that M. Settipani is a "greater" historian than Peter Stewart (_if_ that is his true name).
Unless Peter wishes to allow us a peek at his "hundreds" of articles hidden away until finished (or fixed) ...
Publication output volume seems a rather narrow basis for determining what makes a historian great.

taf
r***@yahoo.com
2017-08-04 19:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Great historians? Has Donald Trump done the hacking today?
Well, it seems indisputable that M. Settipani is a "greater" historian than Peter Stewart (_if_ that is his true name).
Unless Peter wishes to allow us a peek at his "hundreds" of articles hidden away until finished (or fixed) ...
Publication output volume seems a rather narrow basis for determining what makes a historian great.
taf
Still, I think we have to agree that Settipani is "greater" than Stewart.

(If the words "great" and "greater" are to have any agreed-upon meaning.)
Peter Stewart
2017-08-04 22:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Post by taf
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Great historians? Has Donald Trump done the hacking today?
Well, it seems indisputable that M. Settipani is a "greater" historian than Peter Stewart (_if_ that is his true name).
Unless Peter wishes to allow us a peek at his "hundreds" of articles hidden away until finished (or fixed) ...
Publication output volume seems a rather narrow basis for determining what makes a historian great.
taf
Still, I think we have to agree that Settipani is "greater" than Stewart.
(If the words "great" and "greater" are to have any agreed-upon meaning.)
Typically absurd - I have made no claim whatsoever to greatness, as an
historian or as a genealogist. Implicitly calling Maurice Chaume or
Joseph Depoin, much less the complaining poster, a 'great' historian is
highly problematic. What does this leave us to call an actually great
historian such as Ferdinand Lot, or genealogist such as Horace Round?

Articles that are not on the internet are not therefore 'hidden away'.
Even the name of the unsigning poster known as
'***@yahoo.com' is not necessarily 'hidden away', but he or
she no doubt has reasons for not allowing us a peek at it.

I have been attacked as delivering opinions as facts and dealing in
false facts. The attack seems to have been prompted by the harshness of
criticism, but instead of just complaining about the harshness (that
might be reasonable) the person has decried the criticism, without any
specifics at all.

It is claimed that one third of my posts here are insults, one third
erroneous or correcting my own errors and one third providing "excellent
references" (except that the lurker allegedly could do better).

I look forward to seeing some attempt at providing substance behind this
charge. But substance, of course, is not to be expected from
'***@yahoo.com'.

Peter Stewart
r***@yahoo.com
2017-08-04 23:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Failing to sign any name, on the one hand, and always signing a fake name, on the other ...

Is there any difference, ...or is one worse than the other?
Peter Stewart
2017-08-04 23:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Failing to sign any name, on the one hand, and always signing a fake name, on the other ...
Is there any difference, ...or is one worse than the other?
There would be a difference, but of course you are practicing
unconscionable deceit by pretending to know that the name Peter Stewart
is fake.

It isn't.

Peter Stewart
r***@yahoo.com
2017-08-04 23:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm not pretending to know, just assuming (based on some coy foolishness on your part).

Assuming, now, that you _are_ telling the truth, I guess it must be apparent that your entire "published work" in genealogy resides in this newsgroup's archives? Settipani has several entire books out there in the real world.
taf
2017-08-05 01:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@yahoo.com
I'm not pretending to know, just assuming (based on some coy foolishness on your part).
Assuming, now, that you _are_ telling the truth, I guess it must be apparent
that your entire "published work" in genealogy resides in this newsgroup's
archives? Settipani has several entire books out there in the real world.
I would suggest that the quality of any genealogical hypothesis depends on the evidence and argument put forward, much more so than the number of books or articles the contributor has published. It wasn't that long ago when I read a paper in which the key link was supported, not by any evidence whatsoever, but simply with the statement, "what could be more natural". He could have published a hundred papers, and that would still be bad genealogy.

Perhaps addressing Peter's (or anyone else's) genealogical conclusions, rather than his publication history, would be more useful to readers.

taf
Loading...