Discussion:
Royalty for Commoners
(too old to reply)
Happy Texan
2005-08-30 13:40:51 UTC
Permalink
For some time, I have been trying to obtain a copy of Stuart's Royalty for Commoners, 4th Edition. Does anyone know if a 5th Edition is forthcoming, or a reprint of the 4th will be done?
Douglas, I have really enjoyed my copy of Plantagenet Ancestry, great job. Thanks! Leah
Cliff Watts
2005-08-30 13:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Leah wrote:

>> For some time, I have been trying to obtain a copy of Stuart's Royalty
>> for Commoners, 4th Edition. <<

Save your money or do something worthwhile with it.

Cliff
John P. DuLong
2005-08-31 00:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Happy Texan wrote:
> For some time, I have been trying to obtain a copy of Stuart's Royalty for Commoners, 4th Edition. Does anyone know if a 5th Edition is forthcoming, or a reprint of the 4th will be done?
> Douglas, I have really enjoyed my copy of Plantagenet Ancestry, great job. Thanks! Leah
>

You should search the archives of postings on soc.genealogy.medieval
through Google Groups for reviews of this book. It got pretty bad
reviews. I seem to recall that the author has failed to make fixes of
problems pointed out in previous editions. After you check the past
posting I suspect you will want to save your money.

JP
Peter Stewart
2005-08-31 00:51:43 UTC
Permalink
John P. DuLong wrote:

> Happy Texan wrote:
> > For some time, I have been trying to obtain a copy of Stuart's Royalty
> > for Commoners, 4th Edition. Does anyone know if a 5th Edition is
> > forthcoming, or a reprint of the 4th will be done?
> > Douglas, I have really enjoyed my copy of Plantagenet Ancestry, great
> > job.
> > Thanks! Leah
>
> You should search the archives of postings on soc.genealogy.medieval
> through Google Groups for reviews of this book. It got pretty bad
> reviews. I seem to recall that the author has failed to make fixes of
> problems pointed out in previous editions. After you check the past
> posting I suspect you will want to save your money.

This could equally well refer to either Stuart or Richardson, I
suppose, but since Stuart is dead and Leah has already bought
Richardson's book it's hard to tell which is meant.

Both men's books also got syrupy "good" reviews, of course, and some of
these for PA3 at least are also in the archive.

In common they have the same publisher and a similarly fraudulent
approach to citation. Stuart cannot have even glanced at many of the
works in his bibliography, while we know that Richardson couldn't make
sense of primary sources in his & as to secondary sources he failed to
credit properly a number of people whose research and analysis he
copied.

Peter Stewart
John P. DuLong
2005-08-31 02:46:31 UTC
Permalink
To be clear, I was referring to Stuart's Royalty for Commoners. I have
seen this book, indeed, I have owned an earlier edition, and I find that
I agree with the negative reviews it has received. I have not seen
Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry and am therefore not able to comment
on it nor am I in a position to agree or disagree with others who have
criticized it.

JP
norenxaq
2005-08-31 00:52:56 UTC
Permalink
"John P. DuLong" wrote:

> Happy Texan wrote:
> > For some time, I have been trying to obtain a copy of Stuart's Royalty for Commoners, 4th Edition. Does anyone know if a 5th Edition is forthcoming, or a reprint of the 4th will be done?
> > Douglas, I have really enjoyed my copy of Plantagenet Ancestry, great job. Thanks! Leah
> >
>
> You should search the archives of postings on soc.genealogy.medieval
> through Google Groups for reviews of this book. It got pretty bad
> reviews. I seem to recall that the author has failed to make fixes of
> problems pointed out in previous editions.

you recall correctly. I believe I read somewhere that he is no longer among the living, so any future revisions by him would be a bit difficult to do...


unless, of course, he channelled them :>

>
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-08-31 02:21:02 UTC
Permalink
norenxaq wrote:
>
> "John P. DuLong" wrote:
>
>
>>Happy Texan wrote:
>>
>>>For some time, I have been trying to obtain a copy of Stuart's Royalty for Commoners, 4th Edition. Does anyone know if a 5th Edition is forthcoming, or a reprint of the 4th will be done?
>>>Douglas, I have really enjoyed my copy of Plantagenet Ancestry, great job. Thanks! Leah
>>>
>>
>>You should search the archives of postings on soc.genealogy.medieval
>>through Google Groups for reviews of this book. It got pretty bad
>>reviews. I seem to recall that the author has failed to make fixes of
>>problems pointed out in previous editions.
>
>
> you recall correctly. I believe I read somewhere that he is no longer among the living, so any future revisions by him would be a bit difficult to do...
>
>



In the past, this has not prevented GPC from producing further editions.

taf
pj.evans
2005-08-31 02:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> norenxaq wrote:
> >
> > "John P. DuLong" wrote:
> >
<snip>
> >
> > you recall correctly. I believe I read somewhere that he is no longer among the living, so any future revisions by him would be a bit difficult to do...
> >
>
> In the past, this has not prevented GPC from producing further editions.
>
> taf

On the other hand, Stuart's errors are easy to find, and his
organization is (was?) non-existent. And his book wasn't 'sanity
checked' by anyone. At least Richardson is organized, and the errors
(and every book I've seen by anyone has at least one) are not
in-your-face obvious. (I think I put the first edition of RFC that my
father had in the burn pile after he died. I do have the second, mostly
to keep it out of circulation.)

P J Evans
Peter Stewart
2005-08-31 02:54:55 UTC
Permalink
"pj.evans" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>> norenxaq wrote:
>> >
>> > "John P. DuLong" wrote:
>> >
> <snip>
>> >
>> > you recall correctly. I believe I read somewhere that he is no longer
>> > among the living, so any future revisions by him would be a bit
>> > difficult to do...
>> >
>>
>> In the past, this has not prevented GPC from producing further editions.
>>
>> taf
>
> On the other hand, Stuart's errors are easy to find, and his
> organization is (was?) non-existent. And his book wasn't 'sanity
> checked' by anyone. At least Richardson is organized, and the errors
> (and every book I've seen by anyone has at least one) are not
> in-your-face obvious. (I think I put the first edition of RFC that my
> father had in the burn pile after he died. I do have the second, mostly
> to keep it out of circulation.)

And you think errors are somehow less of a problem when they are
inconspicuous? Wrong is wrong, and stupid is stupid, no matter what the
reader may or may not know.

Is the forced & specious nature of Richardson's conjecture today about the
Vernon lineage obvious enough for you? Or is that another example of the
piffle that he can get away with in print because most of the readers he
aims at don't know and/or care enough to see through him?

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2005-08-31 02:49:58 UTC
Permalink
"Todd A. Farmerie" <***@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:df346e$st5$***@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
> norenxaq wrote:
>>
>> "John P. DuLong" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Happy Texan wrote:
>>>
>>>>For some time, I have been trying to obtain a copy of Stuart's Royalty
>>>>for Commoners, 4th Edition. Does anyone know if a 5th Edition is
>>>>forthcoming, or a reprint of the 4th will be done?
>>>>Douglas, I have really enjoyed my copy of Plantagenet Ancestry, great
>>>>job. Thanks! Leah
>>>>
>>>
>>>You should search the archives of postings on soc.genealogy.medieval
>>>through Google Groups for reviews of this book. It got pretty bad
>>>reviews. I seem to recall that the author has failed to make fixes of
>>>problems pointed out in previous editions.
>>
>>
>> you recall correctly. I believe I read somewhere that he is no longer
>> among the living, so any future revisions by him would be a bit difficult
>> to do...
>
> In the past, this has not prevented GPC from producing further editions.

Any randomly selected corpse, including his own, ought to be capable of
better work in genealogy than Roderick Stuart alive - doing nothing at all
is certainly preferable to output of his standard.

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-08-31 13:37:10 UTC
Permalink
> Any randomly selected corpse, including his own, ought to be capable of
> better work in genealogy than Roderick Stuart alive - doing nothing at all
> is certainly preferable to output of his standard.
>
> Peter Stewart

Have you ever actually seen the book, or are you, as usual, mouthing
'consensus' opinions you've picked up from dabbling on this newsgroup?

I think I remember you saying you'd never seen Douglas Richardson's
books, either.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-08-31 16:35:12 UTC
Permalink
John Brandon wrote:
> > Any randomly selected corpse, including his own, ought to be capable of
> > better work in genealogy than Roderick Stuart alive - doing nothing at all
> > is certainly preferable to output of his standard.
> >
> > Peter Stewart
>
> Have you ever actually seen the book, or are you, as usual, mouthing
> 'consensus' opinions you've picked up from dabbling on this newsgroup?
>
> I think I remember you saying you'd never seen Douglas Richardson's
> books, either.

"Peter Stewart" is an admired literary critic in Australia. He doesn't
have to read a book to evaluate its contents.

DR
Peter Stewart
2005-09-01 05:12:59 UTC
Permalink
On 1 September Richardson wrote:

> "Peter Stewart" is an admired literary critic in Australia. He doesn't
> have to read a book to evaluate its contents.

Yet on 25 August Richardson wrote:

> What line of work did "Peter Stewart" work in? We're told he is
> Australia's "leading literary critic." But no such person exists.

Despite switching tack on this bogus question of his own making,
Richardson has not yet apologised to the newsgroup for posting
falsehoods in his total ignorance about another participant, or to me
for his whopping lies regarding my name and activities. Some way to
"make friends" here!

In between the two deceitful messages above, Richardson also posted as
follows, on 26 August under the phoney identity of "Uriah N. Owen":

> You could easily dispel any and all doubt about your authenticity by
> reference to article/articles in another publication - one that bears
> your signature "Peter M. Stewart:, as displayed in your header to this
> forum ?

"Uriah" is supposed to be an Englishman who lives in Turkey, and yet he
doesn't know that British (and Australian) convention is NOT to use
middle initials in this American way. (NB the email address in my posts
does NOT contain my "signature" at all, nor even the words "Peter M.
Stewart" as misrepesented.) This is further evidence that "Uriah", with
his quaint, affected English, is just the tawdry invention of a clumsy
American writer who wants to provide false support for his own
nonsense.

Low, fraudulent, and pathetic.

I wonder how crooked the scarves must be that Uriah "Zairas" Richardson
knits for his "friends". Casting purls before swine....

Peter Stewart
Uriah N. Owen
2005-09-04 18:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Peter Stewart wrote:

comments intersperced:

<snip>
>
> Despite switching tack on this bogus question of his own making,
> Richardson has not yet apologised to the newsgroup for posting
> falsehoods in his total ignorance about another participant, or to me
> for his whopping lies regarding my name and activities. Some way to
> "make friends" here!

Codswallop! None are so blind as those who will not see! To wit:

> In between the two deceitful messages above, Richardson also posted as
> follows, on 26 August under the phoney identity of "Uriah N. Owen":
>
> > You could easily dispel any and all doubt about your authenticity by
> > reference to article/articles in another publication - one that bears
> > your signature "Peter M. Stewart:, as displayed in your header to this
> > forum ?
>
> "Uriah" is supposed to be an Englishman who lives in Turkey,

What? I was born and raised a British subject. If you have any proof to
the contrary, present it to this forum . (NB - not just hearsay or
your opinion) Otherwise your words are totally fallacious.

Further, I have never lived in Turkey! - Again, prove your allegations
or be branded a willfully fraudulent liar.

> and yet he
> doesn't know that British (and Australian) convention is NOT to use
> middle initials in this American way. (NB the email address in my posts
> does NOT contain my "signature" at all, nor even the words "Peter M.
> Stewart" as misrepesented.)


Another one of your delusional conclusions! I was not referring to the
British/Australian convention but to the header & signature/initials on
one of your posts to this forum:

The header states: From: Peter.Stewart (Stewart, Peter) Subject:
Albaron, dated: 2000/07/20

Quote:

"Can anyone provide details of the ancestors of Robert d'Albaron,
seigneur of Lers, living ca 1300? <snip>. Any suggestions for research
will be appreciated.

PM Stewart"

Unquote !

Question: To what does "P_M_Stewart" in your present header allude,
if not to your initials?

> This is further evidence that "Uriah", with
> his quaint, affected English, is just the tawdry invention of a clumsy
> American writer who wants to provide false support for his own
> nonsense.
>
> Low, fraudulent, and pathetic.
<snip>
> Peter Stewart

Rubbish! The only tawdry invention is your fixation with a certain
American writer.

Sincerely, Uriah
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2005-09-04 19:45:25 UTC
Permalink
In message of 4 Sep, "Uriah N. Owen" <***@pobox.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> Another one of your delusional conclusions! I was not referring to the
> British/Australian convention but to the header & signature/initials on
> one of your posts to this forum:
>
> The header states: From: Peter.Stewart (Stewart, Peter) Subject:
> Albaron, dated: 2000/07/20
>
> Quote:
>
> "Can anyone provide details of the ancestors of Robert d'Albaron,
> seigneur of Lers, living ca 1300? <snip>. Any suggestions for research
> will be appreciated.
>
> PM Stewart"
>
> Unquote !
>
> Question: To what does "P_M_Stewart" in your present header allude,
> if not to your initials?

This is a curious one. I did a search on Google for all posts
containing "PM Stewart". This produced only too many with this sort of
thing in the header or introduction:

12:30 PM Stewart, Peter
and
13:43 PM Stewart Baldwin

where PM was, of course "post meridien" (or is it "meridian").

In all the posts by Peter Stewart that I found, only one was actually
signed "PM Stewart", the rest were either "Peter" or "Peter Stewart". I
wonder if he had got bemused by the above false headers and unwittingly
wrote "PM Stewart".

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Peter Stewart
2005-09-04 23:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

> This is a curious one. I did a search on Google for all posts
> containing "PM Stewart". This produced only too many with this
> sort of thing in the header or introduction:
>
> 12:30 PM Stewart, Peter
> and
> 13:43 PM Stewart Baldwin
>
> where PM was, of course "post meridien" (or is it "meridian").
>
> In all the posts by Peter Stewart that I found, only one was actually
> signed "PM Stewart", the rest were either "Peter" or "Peter Stewart".
> I wonder if he had got bemused by the above false headers and
> unwittingly wrote "PM Stewart".

Well, bemused perhaps - but I don't suppose I actually typed out "PM
Stewart".

In 2000 I used a very primitive computer terminal with a monitor that
had a blue screen and faint letters. I probably copy-pasted the wrong
string as my signature.

The only variations from "Peter Stewart" that I can recall appearing in
the signature line of any posts were typos (particularly "Stewrat", on
several occasions), and it was mainly to avoid these that I might have
copied rather than typed what I thought was my usual signature in 2000.

Peter Stewart (really)
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 00:56:39 UTC
Permalink
It is somewhat offensive to hear from several people saying virtually
"a plague on both your houses", as if insults from myself and a few
others directed at Hines, Brandon and Richardson were not provoked and
deserved any more than the manifold jibes, lies and distortions coming
from them. But as always, these false impressions are posted here quite
arbitrarily, without rational back-up, knee-jerk opinions from partial
attention, merely generalised & unexamined. Some insults are thoroughly
deserved: some people are lying twits and it's quite reasonable &
appropriate to say so.

Now Richardson comes along once more in his phoney "Uriah N. Owen"
guise to show us how. Comments interspersed:

> Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> comments intersperced: [sic]
>
> <snip>
>
> > Despite switching tack on this bogus question of his own making,
> > Richardson has not yet apologised to the newsgroup for posting
> > falsehoods in his total ignorance about another participant, or to me
> > for his whopping lies regarding my name and activities. Some way to
> > "make friends" here!
>
> Codswallop! None are so blind as those who will not see! To wit:
>
> > In between the two deceitful messages above, Richardson also posted as
> > follows, on 26 August under the phoney identity of "Uriah N. Owen":
>
> > > You could easily dispel any and all doubt about your authenticity by
> > > reference to article/articles in another publication - one that bears
> > > your signature "Peter M. Stewart:, as displayed in your header to this
> > > forum ?
>
> > "Uriah" is supposed to be an Englishman who lives in Turkey,
>
> What? I was born and raised a British subject. If you have any proof to
> the contrary, present it to this forum . (NB - not just hearsay or
> your opinion) Otherwise your words are totally fallacious.
>
> Further, I have never lived in Turkey! - Again, prove your allegations
> or be branded a willfully fraudulent liar.

The first charge is incomprehensible - if "Uriah" was "born and raised
a British subject" the statistical likelihood of his being an
Englishman is high enough, even if he had not sought to foster that
impression with his sham Cockney mouthings to the newsgroup.

As to his claim now that he has "never lived in Turkey" and yet the
peculiar suggestion that this allegation might be proved: the
information came from a confidant of Richardson's, to explain why
"Uriah" was unable to post directly for himself and even after a delay
had to communicate with the newsgroup through Richardson. The person
who passed on this information can tell us where he got it from. This
aspect of the "Uriah" fraud certainly did not originate from me: it can
(and will) be tracked to its source, to show just who was wilfully
lying.

> > and yet he doesn't know that British (and Australian) convention
> > is NOT to use middle initials in this American way. (NB the email
> > address in my posts does NOT contain my "signature" at all, nor
> > even the words "Peter M. Stewart" as misrepesented.)
>
> Another one of your delusional conclusions! I was not referring to the
> British/Australian convention but to the header & signature/initials on
> one of your posts to this forum:

No, this is another bit of typically Richardsonian obtuseness and
evasion: "Uriah" demanded to be shown the name "Peter M. Stewart"
PUBLISHED in an article or review of mine, and such use of a middle
initial as I said would not be conventional in Britain or in Australia.
Trying to pretend that he was only referring to my e-mail address, when
the entire context was a demand to see this mirrored in print, is
flatly dishonest - and stupid, since we can all see through the ploy.

"Uriah" is making a further Richardson give-away in assuming, without
evidence, that I must have one & only one middle initial anyway, no
matter what this may be.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-09-05 01:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

I have never posted under the name Uriah N. Owen. Mr. Owen writes and
posts his own messages.

Having said that, I'd appreciate it very much if Mr. Stewart left me
out of his "cat fight" with Mr. Owen. Better yet, I recommened the two
of them take their silly argument to private where it belongs.

The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:

<Some insults are thoroughly deserved: some people are lying twits and
it's
< quite reasonable & appropriate to say so.
<
< Now Richardson comes along once more in his phoney "Uriah N. Owen"
< guise to show us how. Comments interspersed:
>
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 01:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Richardson wrote:

> I have never posted under the name Uriah N. Owen. Mr. Owen writes and
> posts his own messages.

Um, leaving aside the question of who wrote these, you as "Douglas
Richardson" have twice now quite explicitly posted messages on behalf
of "Uriah N. Owen".

>From the start this phoney "Uriah" identity has appeared only when you
wished to support Robert Todd without drawing obloquy onto Douglas
Richardson, and lately when you wished to falsify support for Douglas
Richardson that no-one else would provide. Apart from these episodes,
"Uriah" has had nothing to say, no purpose whatsoever in coming before
the newsgroup.

Now, why is that?

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-09-05 02:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Dear Peter ~

You and Mr. Owen need to take your argument to private.

Now back to medieval genealogy ...

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 02:48:22 UTC
Permalink
<***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter ~
>
> You and Mr. Owen need to take your argument to private.
>
> Now back to medieval genealogy ...
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Once again, you are not going to get acces to my private e-mail address, no
matter how many times you try. This was inundated by spam once before, just
after you had tried & failed (through Robert Baxter) to get me barred from
participating in SGM.

Unlike you, I am not foolish enough to make the same mistake twice.

Your latest ploy of throwing over "Uriah N. Owen" & demanding that these
exchanges should be taken to private e-mail will not get you out of the
bare-faced lie about Turkey that was circulated off-list. You made the
mistake of thinking this might be deniable becasue you hadn't posted it to
the newsgroup, but private e-mails also keep and can be published if the
interests of truth conflict with those of privacy.

However, it would be better all round for your confederate (or dupe) in this
falsehood to admit to his responsibility and tell us where he obtained the
misinformation. If he doesn't, the problem won't go away.

Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
2005-09-05 04:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Once again, Pogue Peter Stewart, like a stubborn mule, has the bit in
his teeth and is determined to run the wagon off the road into the
swamp.

Pogue Peter has an absolute Death Wish when it comes to making a fool of
himself on USENET and I must give Douglas Richardson high marks for
playing Stewart like a fat catfish on the end of his line -- one who has
swallowed hook, line and sinker and is ripping his guts out with each
struggle or tug on the line [post] which he makes.

Now that's a delightful mixed metaphor if I do say so myself.

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 03:43:27 UTC
Permalink
"D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OPOSe.852$***@eagle.america.net...
> Once again, Pogue Peter Stewart, like a stubborn mule, has the bit in
> his teeth and is determined to run the wagon off the road into the
> swamp.
>
> Pogue Peter has an absolute Death Wish when it comes to making a fool of
> himself on USENET and I must give Douglas Richardson high marks for
> playing Stewart like a fat catfish on the end of his line -- one who has
> swallowed hook, line and sinker and is ripping his guts out with each
> struggle or tug on the line [post] which he makes.
>
> Now that's a delightful mixed metaphor if I do say so myself.

We might all agree, if only we could know what you are getting at.

Are you not even game to come out plainly saying that you support
Richardson?

Are you by any chance avoiding any kind of endorsement of his deceit over
"Uriah N. Owen"?

A tone of criticism unhinged from any actual & specific fault is no
criticism at all, just fudge & funk.

Perhaps that counts as courage under fire for a housing officer, but such
vague bluster impresses no-one else.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-09-05 04:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Dear Peter ~

You and Mr. Owen need to take your argument to private. That's the
right thing to do. Please leave me, Spencer Hines, and everyone else
out of it.

The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:
> "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OPOSe.852$***@eagle.america.net...
> > Once again, Pogue Peter Stewart, like a stubborn mule, has the bit in
> > his teeth and is determined to run the wagon off the road into the
> > swamp.
> >
> > Pogue Peter has an absolute Death Wish when it comes to making a fool of
> > himself on USENET and I must give Douglas Richardson high marks for
> > playing Stewart like a fat catfish on the end of his line -- one who has
> > swallowed hook, line and sinker and is ripping his guts out with each
> > struggle or tug on the line [post] which he makes.
> >
> > Now that's a delightful mixed metaphor if I do say so myself.
>
> We might all agree, if only we could know what you are getting at.
>
> Are you not even game to come out plainly saying that you support
> Richardson?
>
> Are you by any chance avoiding any kind of endorsement of his deceit over
> "Uriah N. Owen"?
>
> A tone of criticism unhinged from any actual & specific fault is no
> criticism at all, just fudge & funk.
>
> Perhaps that counts as courage under fire for a housing officer, but such
> vague bluster impresses no-one else.
>
> Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
2005-09-05 05:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Quite Right -- And Well Said.

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

DSH
------------------------------------------

<***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

| Dear Peter ~
|
| You and Mr. Owen need to take your argument to private. That's the
| right thing to do. Please leave me, Spencer Hines, and everyone else
| out of it.
|
| The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: www.royalancestry.net
|
| Peter Stewart wrote:

<snipped rampant gibberish>

| > "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:OPOSe.852$***@eagle.america.net...

| > Once again, Pogue Peter Stewart, like a stubborn mule, has the bit
| > in his teeth and is determined to run the wagon off the road into
| > the swamp.
| >
| > Pogue Peter has an absolute Death Wish when it comes to making a
| > fool of himself on USENET and I must give Douglas Richardson high
| > marks for playing Stewart like a fat catfish on the end of his
| > line -- one who has swallowed hook, line and sinker and is ripping
| > his guts out with each struggle or tug on the line [post] which he
| > makes.
| >
| > Now that's a delightful mixed metaphor if I do say so myself.
CED
2005-09-05 05:57:12 UTC
Permalink
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Quite Right -- And Well Said.
>
> Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
> opus.
>
> DSH
> ------------------------------------------
>
> <***@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> | Dear Peter ~
> |
> | You and Mr. Owen need to take your argument to private. That's the
> | right thing to do. Please leave me, Spencer Hines, and everyone else
> | out of it.
> |
> | The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.
> |
> | Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> |
> | Website: www.royalancestry.net
> |
> | Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> <snipped rampant gibberish>
>
> | > "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:OPOSe.852$***@eagle.america.net...
>
> | > Once again, Pogue Peter Stewart, like a stubborn mule, has the bit
> | > in his teeth and is determined to run the wagon off the road into
> | > the swamp.
> | >
> | > Pogue Peter has an absolute Death Wish when it comes to making a
> | > fool of himself on USENET and I must give Douglas Richardson high
> | > marks for playing Stewart like a fat catfish on the end of his
> | > line -- one who has swallowed hook, line and sinker and is ripping
> | > his guts out with each struggle or tug on the line [post] which he
> | > makes.
> | >
> | > Now that's a delightful mixed metaphor if I do say so myself.

To the Newsgroup:

If we had a moderator, we would not be plagued by comments such as
those of DSH.

CED
Leo van de Pas
2005-09-05 06:09:09 UTC
Permalink
As far as Uriah and Hines is concerned we would not loose anything.



--- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <***@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Royalty For Commoners


>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Quite Right -- And Well Said.
>>
>> Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
>> opus.
>>
>> DSH
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> <***@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> | Dear Peter ~
>> |
>> | You and Mr. Owen need to take your argument to private. That's the
>> | right thing to do. Please leave me, Spencer Hines, and everyone else
>> | out of it.
>> |
>> | The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.
>> |
>> | Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>> |
>> | Website: www.royalancestry.net
>> |
>> | Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>> <snipped rampant gibberish>
>>
>> | > "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> | > news:OPOSe.852$***@eagle.america.net...
>>
>> | > Once again, Pogue Peter Stewart, like a stubborn mule, has the bit
>> | > in his teeth and is determined to run the wagon off the road into
>> | > the swamp.
>> | >
>> | > Pogue Peter has an absolute Death Wish when it comes to making a
>> | > fool of himself on USENET and I must give Douglas Richardson high
>> | > marks for playing Stewart like a fat catfish on the end of his
>> | > line -- one who has swallowed hook, line and sinker and is ripping
>> | > his guts out with each struggle or tug on the line [post] which he
>> | > makes.
>> | >
>> | > Now that's a delightful mixed metaphor if I do say so myself.
>
> To the Newsgroup:
>
> If we had a moderator, we would not be plagued by comments such as
> those of DSH.
>
> CED
>
D. Spencer Hines
2005-09-05 08:10:13 UTC
Permalink
""Leo van de Pas"" <***@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:00bd01c5b1e0$4e2addf0$***@Toshiba...

| As far as Uriah and Hines is [sic] concerned we would not loose [sic]
| anything.

Hilarious!

Leo The Illiterate Strikes Again!

It looks as if he is drinking and posting again.

Bad Show....

DSH
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 07:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Hines wrote:

> Quite Right -- And Well Said.

This in response to Richardson's unctuous remarks ("You and Mr. Owen
need to take your argument to private. That's the right thing to do.")
from someone who in other debates _always_ insists that matters raised
in the newsgroup should stay here....

But Hines is clearly floundering in his efforts to spare Richardson the
shame of exposure over his fraud about "Uriah N. Owen" & his inability
to post directly due to living in Turkey. Sooner or later the stooge
who passed on this lie for him will come forward & explain where he
picked up the falsehood, or will be outed as a liar himself if he
doesn't.

Meanwhile can anyone explain how even Hines could pretend to think that
Richardson is "is ripping [my] guts out" with the last few posts he had
made before this risible comment, that contained only self-serving
pleas to take the discussion private? Can Hines actually be stupid
enough to think anyone else buys this kind of absurdity?

Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
2005-09-05 08:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

Pogue Stewart just continues to play the fool and dig himself a deeper
hole.

Alas, poor Yorick!

I certainly did not say Richardson "is ripping Stewart's guts out".

He doesn't NEED to -- Pogue Stewart does a simply marvelous job of
ripping his OWN guts out -- as the Richardsonian hook is firmly planted
in his innards.

All Richardson need do is keep the line taut and play him.

Pogue Stewart clearly needs to learn to read Standard English.

Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

As I clearly said:

"Once again, Pogue Peter Stewart, like a stubborn mule, has the bit in
his teeth and is determined to run the wagon off the road into the
swamp.

Pogue Peter has an absolute Death Wish when it comes to making a fool of
himself on USENET and I must give Douglas Richardson high marks for
playing Stewart like a fat catfish on the end of his line -- one who has
swallowed hook, line and sinker and is ripping his guts out with each
struggle or tug on the line [post] which he makes.

Now that's a delightful mixed metaphor if I do say so myself.

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 07:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Whether the fisherman or the fish is doing it, the alleged effect is the
same.

The difficulty Hines is shirking is to show us how Richardson has cast a
line with any hook, line & sinker that I have supposedly swallowed.

Everyone else can see the same exchanges, and nothing remotely of this sort
is going on in them.

Richardson has clumsily lied about "Uriah N. Owen", idiotically accusing me
of the same, and he is now in the process of being shown up for this: his
amanuensis is presently tossing up whether it's better to confess his part
in the matter, that may have been as an innocent dupe, or wait to see this
exposed anyway in a much less favourable light.

Either way, the truth will out.

Note that Hines doesn't have the guts in him, ripped about or otherwise, to
make a straightforward endorsement of Richardson's misrepresentations about
"Uriah". He thinks instead that he can caper around the issue, twisting,
writhing and flapping in the wind of his own hot air.

Peter Stewart




"D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dvSSe.867$***@eagle.america.net...
> Hilarious!
>
> Pogue Stewart just continues to play the fool and dig himself a deeper
> hole.
>
> Alas, poor Yorick!
>
> I certainly did not say Richardson "is ripping Stewart's guts out".
>
> He doesn't NEED to -- Pogue Stewart does a simply marvelous job of
> ripping his OWN guts out -- as the Richardsonian hook is firmly planted
> in his innards.
>
> All Richardson need do is keep the line taut and play him.
>
> Pogue Stewart clearly needs to learn to read Standard English.
>
> Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> As I clearly said:
>
> "Once again, Pogue Peter Stewart, like a stubborn mule, has the bit in
> his teeth and is determined to run the wagon off the road into the
> swamp.
>
> Pogue Peter has an absolute Death Wish when it comes to making a fool of
> himself on USENET and I must give Douglas Richardson high marks for
> playing Stewart like a fat catfish on the end of his line -- one who has
> swallowed hook, line and sinker and is ripping his guts out with each
> struggle or tug on the line [post] which he makes.
>
> Now that's a delightful mixed metaphor if I do say so myself.
>
> "Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
>
> Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
>
> Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
> opus.
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> Vires et Honor
>
D. Spencer Hines
2005-09-05 09:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Clearly Stewart finds himself in a deep, dark, damp, fetid hole of his
own creation.

But he has never learned the wisdom of the imperative to:

Stop Digging!

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude....

DSH
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 08:32:20 UTC
Permalink
"D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TQSSe.869$***@eagle.america.net...
> Clearly Stewart finds himself in a deep, dark, damp, fetid hole of his
> own creation.
>
> But he has never learned the wisdom of the imperative to:
>
> Stop Digging!

Gnomic evasion, yet again - are you now endorsing the claim that I
fabricated the Turkey connection of a real personage named "Uriah N. Owen"?
If so, the record will show who has dug themselves into a hole over this. If
not, Hines is only ranting as usual, because that is the subject of the
exchanges that he butted into, trying to run interference for Richardson but
wihtout the courage to declare himself.

Peter Stewart
m***@btinternet.com
2005-09-05 08:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Dear Spencer

You and Mr. Stewart need to take your argument to private. That's the
right thing to do. Please leave the rest of us out of it.


The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends...
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 09:03:30 UTC
Permalink
<***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Spencer
>
> You and Mr. Stewart need to take your argument to private. That's the
> right thing to do. Please leave the rest of us out of it.
>
>
> The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends...

I was waiting for Richardson to deliver this lecture, but of course he
couldn't risk ticking off Hines as that prevaricating fool is now 50% of the
rotten support he has left on the newsgroup.

Hines can't take the exchange to private e-mail, as he doesn't know my
address; and I am not about to contact him, so it's just not going to
happen.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 09:15:34 UTC
Permalink
"Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:CRTSe.23703$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear Spencer
>>
>> You and Mr. Stewart need to take your argument to private. That's the
>> right thing to do. Please leave the rest of us out of it.
>>
>>
>> The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends...
>
> I was waiting for Richardson to deliver this lecture, but of course he
> couldn't risk ticking off Hines as that prevaricating fool is now 50% of
> the rotten support he has left on the newsgroup.
>
> Hines can't take the exchange to private e-mail, as he doesn't know my
> address; and I am not about to contact him, so it's just not going to
> happen.

I should add that there's nothing "private" about the issue in this thread:
Richardson has deceived the newsgroup with his imposture as "Uriah N. Owen";
when he first channeled a message from that fictitious personage to SGM, he
apparently made known off-list that this was necessary because the purported
e-mail of "Owen" had come to him from Turkey, and the author couldn't access
the newsgroup directly from there.

Now Richardson has tried to deny, as "Uriah", that this individual was
supposed to be in Turkey, and has accused me of fabricating this.

We shall see, and since the flasehoods were perpetrated here they will of
course be exposed here.

Peter Stewart
Leo van de Pas
2005-09-05 08:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Dear Peter,

Turkey? No that is not your invention. I have received private messages from
someone claiming first not to know who Uriah was or even whether he existed.
Then I was told by the same person that he knew who Uriah was, this seems to
imply to me that Uriah is not his real name, and then I was told as a hint
that the message came from Turkey.

And I think even Richardson himself may have made a mention of Turkey, which
was the reason why he had to type the messages for Uriah. Why he couldn't
forward it and simply remove the sender's details, I don't know. It is so
much faster.
Leo




----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Royalty For Commoners


>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:TQSSe.869$***@eagle.america.net...
>> Clearly Stewart finds himself in a deep, dark, damp, fetid hole of his
>> own creation.
>>
>> But he has never learned the wisdom of the imperative to:
>>
>> Stop Digging!
>
> Gnomic evasion, yet again - are you now endorsing the claim that I
> fabricated the Turkey connection of a real personage named "Uriah N.
> Owen"? If so, the record will show who has dug themselves into a hole over
> this. If not, Hines is only ranting as usual, because that is the subject
> of the exchanges that he butted into, trying to run interference for
> Richardson but wihtout the courage to declare himself.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
Uriah N. Owen
2005-09-08 04:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

> Once again, you are not going to get acces to my private e-mail address, no
> matter how many times you try. This was inundated by spam once before, just
> after you had tried & failed (through Robert Baxter) to get me barred from
> participating in SGM.

Golly, (to use a recent Stewart expression), you have been spammed too?
Now that you have brought up the subject of e-mail addresses, you
complain about access to your private e-mail, AND you accuse me of
having "a patently phoney name" and phoney e-mail address, yet not
once have you or your cohort Paul R. tried to contact me through my
private (but now public) e-mail address to verify if I really exist.

Yet others of your little band of merry genealogists have. (Hint:
it's documented in my post to this forum: Re: hypocritical calls for
collegiality [OT] Date: 21 Apr 2002) - AND remember this revealing
information was e-mailed to me seven days prior to it being posted to
this forum by Reed!

> Unlike you, I am not foolish enough to make the same mistake twice.
>
> Your latest ploy of throwing over "Uriah N. Owen" & demanding that these
> exchanges should be taken to private e-mail will not get you out of the
> bare-faced lie about Turkey that was circulated off-list. You made

So! You admit that your source of information of my whereabouts IS only
hearsay! Bad form from one of Australia's most admired critics!

> the
> mistake of thinking this might be deniable becasue you hadn't posted it to
> the newsgroup, but private e-mails also keep and can be published if the
> interests of truth conflict with those of privacy.

Say what? I thought that there was an unwritten code of honour amongst
journalists never to reveal their sources - but I guess that doesn't
apply to an "admired critic"! Really bad form.

> However, it would be better all round for your confederate (or dupe) in this falsehood . . . .

What? YOU admit to this forum that the source (and only source it
appears) is hearsay from a confederate of Mr. Richardson?

- Obviously YOU are the dupe! - Hoisted by his own petar(d) again !!

<snip>
>
> Peter Stewart

P.S. Interestingly, one of your cohorts has e-mailed me some
information (inadvertently, I expect). It appears that you were at one
time on the editorial committee of a now defunct magazine. (NB, the
writer distinctly stated "editorial" not critic).

Would you care to comment on it's veracity?

Cheers, Uriah
Merilyn Pedrick
2005-09-08 04:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Oh! For God's sake, whoever you are, piss off and leave the rest of us in
peace to get on with what we enjoy - medieval genealogy.
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: Uriah N. Owen
Date: 09/08/05 13:45:48
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royalty for Commoners

Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

> Once again, you are not going to get acces to my private e-mail address,
no
> matter how many times you try. This was inundated by spam once before,
just
> after you had tried & failed (through Robert Baxter) to get me barred from
> participating in SGM.

Golly, (to use a recent Stewart expression), you have been spammed too?
Now that you have brought up the subject of e-mail addresses, you
complain about access to your private e-mail, AND you accuse me of
having "a patently phoney name" and phoney e-mail address, yet not
once have you or your cohort Paul R. tried to contact me through my
private (but now public) e-mail address to verify if I really exist.

Yet others of your little band of merry genealogists have. (Hint:
it's documented in my post to this forum: Re: hypocritical calls for
collegiality [OT] Date: 21 Apr 2002) - AND remember this revealing
information was e-mailed to me seven days prior to it being posted to
this forum by Reed!

> Unlike you, I am not foolish enough to make the same mistake twice.
>
> Your latest ploy of throwing over "Uriah N. Owen" & demanding that these
> exchanges should be taken to private e-mail will not get you out of the
> bare-faced lie about Turkey that was circulated off-list. You made

So! You admit that your source of information of my whereabouts IS only
hearsay! Bad form from one of Australia's most admired critics!

> the
> mistake of thinking this might be deniable becasue you hadn't posted it to
> the newsgroup, but private e-mails also keep and can be published if the
> interests of truth conflict with those of privacy.

Say what? I thought that there was an unwritten code of honour amongst
journalists never to reveal their sources - but I guess that doesn't
apply to an "admired critic"! Really bad form.

> However, it would be better all round for your confederate (or dupe) in
this falsehood . . . .

What? YOU admit to this forum that the source (and only source it
appears) is hearsay from a confederate of Mr. Richardson?

- Obviously YOU are the dupe! - Hoisted by his own petar(d) again !!

<snip>
>
> Peter Stewart

P.S. Interestingly, one of your cohorts has e-mailed me some
information (inadvertently, I expect). It appears that you were at one
time on the editorial committee of a now defunct magazine. (NB, the
writer distinctly stated "editorial" not critic).

Would you care to comment on it's veracity?

Cheers, Uriah
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 05:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Richardson pretending to be "Uriah N. Owen" moronically wrote (yet
again...):

> Golly, (to use a recent Stewart expression), you have been spammed
> too? Now that you have brought up the subject of e-mail addresses,
> you complain about access to your private e-mail, AND you accuse
> me of having "a patently phoney name" and phoney e-mail address,
> yet not once have you or your cohort Paul R. tried to contact me
> through my private (but now public) e-mail address to verify if I really
> exist.

Paul Reed is not my "cohort", and contacting an e-mail address does
nothing to prove that the recipient isn't someone masquerading under a
phoney identity. This is Richardsonian stupidity, so characteristic of
him as to be unmistakable.

> Yet others of your little band of merry genealogists have. (Hint:
> it's documented in my post to this forum: Re: hypocritical calls for
> collegiality [OT] Date: 21 Apr 2002) - AND remember this revealing
> information was e-mailed to me seven days prior to it being posted to
> this forum by Reed!

I have no idea what this is about - how can the real existence of
"Uriah N. Owen" be "documented" in a post from...."Uriah N. Owen"?
No-one here can believe a word said under this name.

[I wrote:]
> > Unlike you, I am not foolish enough to make the same mistake twice.
>
> > Your latest ploy of throwing over "Uriah N. Owen" & demanding that these
> > exchanges should be taken to private e-mail will not get you out of the
> > bare-faced lie about Turkey that was circulated off-list.
>
> So! You admit that your source of information of my whereabouts IS only
> hearsay! Bad form from one of Australia's most admired critics!

Richardson was the purported conduit to the newsgroup of a message
allegedly from "Uriah N. Owen". Richardson and/or his friend Mike Welch
then made known off-list that this indirect process had been necessary
because the e-mail from "Owen" had come from Turkey. If this is a lie,
there is only ONE liar at work, and this must be either Richardson or
Welch.

The silence from Welch since this was raised strongly suggests to me
that he is aware of the fraud and unable to answer for his part in it,
whether perpetrated by himself alone (MOST unlikely) or originating
from Richardson (as seems obvious, since he was the person with
something odd to explain). This falsehood did NOT originate with me,
and the e-mails to prove this can be posted here if either Richardson
or Welch has the gall to deny the charge.

> > the mistake of thinking this might be deniable becasue you hadn't posted
> > it to the newsgroup, but private e-mails also keep and can be published if
> > the interests of truth conflict with those of privacy.
>
> Say what? I thought that there was an unwritten code of honour amongst
> journalists never to reveal their sources - but I guess that doesn't
> apply to an "admired critic"! Really bad form.

Richardsonian, self-serving rubbish - I am participating in a Usenet
newsgroup, not writing journalism. I am responding to a fraud committed
AGAINST the public in a public forum, not using a legitimate &
blameless source to gain information in the public interest.

> > However, it would be better all round for your confederate (or dupe)
> > in this falsehood . . . .
>
> What? YOU admit to this forum that the source (and only source it
> appears) is hearsay from a confederate of Mr. Richardson?

And that's all that can be needed to show up the lie for what it is:
Welch is a confidant of Richardson, and took it on himself to pass
along misinformation that could only have come to him directly from
Richardson, telling what "Uriah N. Owen" subsequently claimed to be a
lie. This was a lapse on the part of Richardson, who had woven such a
tangled web of deceit that he couldn't keep his own bearings in it.

> - Obviously YOU are the dupe! - Hoisted by his own petar(d) again !!

The phrase is "Hoist with his own petard" and it neatly summarises what
has happened to Richardson with his imposture as "Uriah N. Owen". There
is no sensible way it can be applied to me - the "petard" is not mine
in the first place and I am clearly not the one "hoist" with it, to be
ridiculed and scorned by newsgroup readers for lying habits.

> P.S. Interestingly, one of your cohorts has e-mailed me some
> information (inadvertently, I expect). It appears that you were at one
> time on the editorial committee of a now defunct magazine. (NB, the
> writer distinctly stated "editorial" not critic).
>
> Would you care to comment on it's veracity?

I have been an editorial adviser for a number of publications over many
years, some flourishing and some defunct, so that I have no idea which
you may mean - however, there is no conflict whatever between this and
the writing of literary criticism, either in the same publication or in
others, so that once again you are committing a give-away Richardsonism
by imagining that this could make a jot of difference to the matter.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-09-08 06:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Peter Stewart wrote:
> Richardson pretending to be "Uriah N. Owen" moronically wrote (yet
> again...):

This is manure. Where are the list owners?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 06:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Richardson wrote:

> This is manure. Where are the list owners?

Desperate for someone, anyone, to protect him from the consequences of
his lies...and nothing to say for himself.

I do not subscribe to the Gen-Med list, so that its owners can have
nothing to answer for.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 08:33:50 UTC
Permalink
"Uriah N. Owen" <***@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

> Yet others of your little band of merry genealogists have. (Hint:
> it's documented in my post to this forum: Re: hypocritical calls for
> collegiality [OT] Date: 21 Apr 2002) - AND remember this revealing
> information was e-mailed to me seven days prior to it being posted to
> this forum by Reed!

Someone has found the post that Richardson referred to under cover of his
phoney "Uriah": it proves NOTHING beyond the deep stupidity of its writer.

The post can be perused at http://tinyurl.com/dc4mj.

Richardson-Owen couldn't even work out that Paul Reed was the only witness,
and wasn't sitting at a table but returning to one from elsewhere. Only
Richardson was actually sitting at a table, as stated by Paul, and despite
the clear places all around he was deliberately encroaching on Paul's spot
and work materials.

Someone wrote off-list that Paul has confirmed this incident, and
Richardson - who had been there - misunderstood completely.

All that is revealed in this post from "Uriah" is the compromising
information that the writer knew about the number plate on Paul Reed's
truck - in other words, was present in SLC. So "Uriah" was not a Brit in
Turkey, but an ass in Utah.

And now he draws our attention to his precvious undoing! That is Richardson
all over....

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-09-08 13:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Peter Stewart wrote:
> Someone has found the post that Richardson referred to under cover of his
> phoney "Uriah": it proves NOTHING beyond the deep stupidity of its writer.
>
> The post can be perused at http://tinyurl.com/dc4mj.

More manure from PMS. Where are the list owners?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 22:40:19 UTC
Permalink
<***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>> Someone has found the post that Richardson referred to under cover of his
>> phoney "Uriah": it proves NOTHING beyond the deep stupidity of its
>> writer.
>>
>> The post can be perused at http://tinyurl.com/dc4mj.
>
> More manure from PMS. Where are the list owners?
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

More of what Hines would call "whining and kvetching", except of course that
Hines is still hiding in his beloved tall grass.

And still not a word of explanation or apology by Richardson, when he has
been caught red-handed in a whopping deceit of the newsgroup. Not even a
rat's effort to blame it all on Welch.

And still nothing from the latter....

Peter Stewart
W***@gmail.com
2005-09-09 11:31:00 UTC
Permalink
On 8 Sep 2005 06:25:04 -0700, "Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com"
<***@msn.com> wrote:

>Peter Stewart wrote:
>> Someone has found the post that Richardson referred to under cover of his
>> phoney "Uriah": it proves NOTHING beyond the deep stupidity of its writer.
>>
>> The post can be perused at http://tinyurl.com/dc4mj.
>
>More manure from PMS. Where are the list owners?

While GEN-MEDIEVAL is a mailing list with list owners, you're reading and
posting (through the Google interface) to the soc.genealogy.medieval Usenet
newsgroup. A newsgroup is not a list and does not have any owners.

Other than David Lawrence and/or Fluffy the cat, that is.
m***@btinternet.com
2005-09-08 14:49:08 UTC
Permalink
- Obviously YOU are the dupe! - Hoisted by his own petar(d) again !!


<snip>



> Peter Stewart



P.S. Interestingly, one of your cohorts has e-mailed me some
information (inadvertently, I expect). It appears that you were at one

time on the editorial committee of a now defunct magazine. (NB, the
writer distinctly stated "editorial" not critic).

Would you care to comment on it's veracity?


Cheers, Uriah


"Cohort" is a curiously underused word.

And the misquote "hoisted" is one that jars whenever I see it.
John Brandon
2005-09-08 14:58:53 UTC
Permalink
***@btinternet.com wrote:
> - Obviously YOU are the dupe! - Hoisted by his own petar(d) again !!
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Peter Stewart
>
>
>
> P.S. Interestingly, one of your cohorts has e-mailed me some
> information (inadvertently, I expect). It appears that you were at one
>
> time on the editorial committee of a now defunct magazine. (NB, the
> writer distinctly stated "editorial" not critic).
>
> Would you care to comment on it's veracity?
>
>
> Cheers, Uriah
>
>
> "Cohort" is a curiously underused word.
>
> And the misquote "hoisted" is one that jars whenever I see it.


Doesn't this tend to show that Michael is Uriah?
m***@btinternet.com
2005-09-08 15:20:10 UTC
Permalink
No, just I'm a Luddite with a laptop when it comes to showing what I'm
responding to.

I should have indented the material from "- Obviously" to "Cheers,
Uriah" given that my machine/usenet access is frequently incapable of
doing so like it used to.

I may be a poor typist, but I hope I would never come up with "it's"
when "its" is meant.
John Brandon
2005-09-08 15:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Oh, okay, my bad.

***@btinternet.com wrote:
> No, just I'm a Luddite with a laptop when it comes to showing what I'm
> responding to.
>
> I should have indented the material from "- Obviously" to "Cheers,
> Uriah" given that my machine/usenet access is frequently incapable of
> doing so like it used to.
>
> I may be a poor typist, but I hope I would never come up with "it's"
> when "its" is meant.
m***@btinternet.com
2005-09-08 15:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Not a problem!

It is amusing to think of SGM turning into Murder On The Orient
Express, with everyone a suspect in turn!
John Brandon
2005-09-08 15:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Yep? "Hmmm, are you the real Darren Condon? Might you be ... say,
Eric Huwald ... posting under an assumed name?"

Great fun!

***@btinternet.com wrote:
> Not a problem!
>
> It is amusing to think of SGM turning into Murder On The Orient
> Express, with everyone a suspect in turn!
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 22:32:32 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> ***@btinternet.com wrote:

> Doesn't this tend to show that Michael is Uriah?

Not at all - Welch can't write or spell for toffee. Assuming HE exists
independently of Richardson, he has clearly posted material occasionally
that was sent to him by Richardson, who himself tried to explain the
improved spelling in these with a fishy claim that Welch had a new
spell-checker: curious enough that Richardson knew this before the problem
was pointed out by me, but it didn't last anyway.

If Welch was "Uriah" and telling people off-list that Uriah was in Turkey,
why would "Yriah" then deny this and accuse ME of lying? Get real -
Richardson told Welch about Turkey as a lame excuse (all that Welch would
need), not intending for him to pass it on. All three identies, Richardson,
Owen and Welch, were then fool enough to ignore several references by me to
"Uriah the Turk" before "Uriah" himself thought it would be smart to deny
this falsehood that could only have originated with one (or all) of the
three.

Is this too hard for you?

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 22:56:49 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> ***@btinternet.com wrote:

> Doesn't this tend to show that Michael is Uriah?

Another fatal flaw in this theory is that it leaves Richardson as a
bare-faced, incorrigible liar anyway - Richardson channeled e-mails
purportedly received by him from "Uriah" to this newsgroup. So if these had
actually come to him from Welch, what does that tell you about Richardson's
honesty & reliability?

But you are trailing a red herring across his smelly tracks, of course.

Peter Stewart
CED
2005-09-05 05:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Uriah N. Owen wrote:
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> comments intersperced:


To the Newsgroup:

If we were moderated, we could be rid of Uriah N. Owen. Moreover, if
it could be found that one of us was using Uriah for less than
honourable purposes, we could be rid of another problem.

CED


>
> <snip>
> >
> > Despite switching tack on this bogus question of his own making,
> > Richardson has not yet apologised to the newsgroup for posting
> > falsehoods in his total ignorance about another participant, or to me
> > for his whopping lies regarding my name and activities. Some way to
> > "make friends" here!
>
> Codswallop! None are so blind as those who will not see! To wit:
>
> > In between the two deceitful messages above, Richardson also posted as
> > follows, on 26 August under the phoney identity of "Uriah N. Owen":
> >
> > > You could easily dispel any and all doubt about your authenticity by
> > > reference to article/articles in another publication - one that bears
> > > your signature "Peter M. Stewart:, as displayed in your header to this
> > > forum ?
> >
> > "Uriah" is supposed to be an Englishman who lives in Turkey,
>
> What? I was born and raised a British subject. If you have any proof to
> the contrary, present it to this forum . (NB - not just hearsay or
> your opinion) Otherwise your words are totally fallacious.
>
> Further, I have never lived in Turkey! - Again, prove your allegations
> or be branded a willfully fraudulent liar.
>
> > and yet he
> > doesn't know that British (and Australian) convention is NOT to use
> > middle initials in this American way. (NB the email address in my posts
> > does NOT contain my "signature" at all, nor even the words "Peter M.
> > Stewart" as misrepesented.)
>
>
> Another one of your delusional conclusions! I was not referring to the
> British/Australian convention but to the header & signature/initials on
> one of your posts to this forum:
>
> The header states: From: Peter.Stewart (Stewart, Peter) Subject:
> Albaron, dated: 2000/07/20
>
> Quote:
>
> "Can anyone provide details of the ancestors of Robert d'Albaron,
> seigneur of Lers, living ca 1300? <snip>. Any suggestions for research
> will be appreciated.
>
> PM Stewart"
>
> Unquote !
>
> Question: To what does "P_M_Stewart" in your present header allude,
> if not to your initials?
>
> > This is further evidence that "Uriah", with
> > his quaint, affected English, is just the tawdry invention of a clumsy
> > American writer who wants to provide false support for his own
> > nonsense.
> >
> > Low, fraudulent, and pathetic.
> <snip>
> > Peter Stewart
>
> Rubbish! The only tawdry invention is your fixation with a certain
> American writer.
>
> Sincerely, Uriah
John Brandon
2005-09-08 13:38:26 UTC
Permalink
> Moreover, if it could be found that one of us was using Uriah for less than
> honourable purposes, we could be rid of another problem.

How could this ever be proved? I suspect it would only take the
somewhat idle suspicions of one or two of the moderaters. Then the
group would be free to become "a My-Little-Pony love affair of nerds
and so-called friends" (to quote the accurate observations of a
commentator on the current season of 'Big Brother').
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 22:24:57 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Moreover, if it could be found that one of us was using Uriah for less
>> than
>> honourable purposes, we could be rid of another problem.
>
> How could this ever be proved? I suspect it would only take the
> somewhat idle suspicions of one or two of the moderaters. Then the
> group would be free to become "a My-Little-Pony love affair of nerds
> and so-called friends" (to quote the accurate observations of a
> commentator on the current season of 'Big Brother').

You are overlooking the fact that "Uriah" has never contributed ANYTHING of
value, by any standards, on the subject of medieval genealogy, so that a
moderated newsgroup would never have heard of this self-evidently fictitious
personage ("UNOwen" as a wet & feeble pun for "Unknown", pointed out by
Rosie in 2002) no matter who was behind the tacky facade.

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-09-08 22:35:34 UTC
Permalink
> ("UNOwen" as a wet & feeble pun for "Unknown", pointed out by
> Rosie in 2002) no matter who was behind the tacky facade.
>
> Peter Stewart

I find that interpretation a little forced, to say the least.
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 22:45:07 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> ("UNOwen" as a wet & feeble pun for "Unknown", pointed out by
>> Rosie in 2002) no matter who was behind the tacky facade.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> I find that interpretation a little forced, to say the least.

How many people have you heard of called "Uriah"? Do you seriously think
this might be a real name? Or if not, that its inventor weirdly didn't see
the very obvious outcome that can only seem "forced" because you evidently
hadn't seen it?

Either Robert Todd or Richardson thought it up, or perhaps borrowed it, in
order to have the appearance of independent support for their nonsense with
the cover of an obvious pseudonym. But even this didn't stop Richardson from
having "Uriah" join in his hypocritical (and your absurd) inquisition about
my identity.

Peter Stewart
R. Battle
2005-09-08 23:18:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>
> Either Robert Todd or Richardson thought it [the use of "U. N. Owen" to
> represent "unknown" - RB] up, or perhaps borrowed it, in order to have
> the appearance of independent support for their nonsense with the cover
> of an obvious pseudonym.
<snip>

It has been brought to my attention off-list that this sort of pseudonym
has been used before--namely in Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Indians"
(also called "And Then There Were None" and previously called something
less palatable and rather less PC). The pseudonyms "Una Nancy Owen" and
"Ulick Norman Owen" were both employed on correspondence therein, with the
intent of indicating the "UNOwen" identity of the writer(s). So, it would
appear that "Uriah" was cut from a borrowed pattern rather than an
original one.

-Robert Battle
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 23:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Robert Battle wrote:

> It has been brought to my attention off-list that this sort of
> pseudonym has been used before--namely in Agatha Christie's
> "Ten Little Indians" (also called "And Then There Were None"
> and previously called something less palatable and rather less
> PC). The pseudonyms "Una Nancy Owen" and "Ulick Norman
> Owen" were both employed on correspondence therein, with the
> intent of indicating the "UNOwen" identity of the writer(s). So, it
> would appear that "Uriah" was cut from a borrowed pattern
> rather than an original one.

Thanks Robert - it's not surprising that the name was from a pattern.
Maybe Douglas "Zairas" Richardson found this in a knitting book.

It's taking him an awfully long time to think up a smarmy excuse for
his lies, in order to reclaim some toehold of plausibility for future
postings here. He can't keep stalling the newsgroup's condemnation with
empty bleats of "manure".

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-09-09 13:28:06 UTC
Permalink
> How many people have you heard of called "Uriah"? Do you seriously think
> this might be a real name?

People do use this name in the U.S.A. (you're forgetting our penchant
for Puritanical/ Biblical names like Asa, Jeremiah, Ezekiel ["Zeke"]).
I'm willing to bet that Uriah is more popular in the U.S. than Simon,
Nigel, or the awful Jolyon.
Peter Stewart
2005-09-10 01:32:32 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> How many people have you heard of called "Uriah"? Do you seriously think
>> this might be a real name?
>
> People do use this name in the U.S.A. (you're forgetting our penchant
> for Puritanical/ Biblical names like Asa, Jeremiah, Ezekiel ["Zeke"]).
> I'm willing to bet that Uriah is more popular in the U.S. than Simon,
> Nigel, or the awful Jolyon.

Some memories are shorter than others - "Uriah" the Turk is supposed to be
British, not a U.S. citizen descended from Puritans. I've never heard of an
Englishman with this name, though I wouldn't put it beyond the Welsh.

The Biblical Uriah the Hittite might (or at least his ancestors) have come
from the geographic area of modern Turkey. He got himself killed in a
skirmish against the wishes of his master King David. It seems that our
fictional "Uriah" isn't feeling too well today after his own foolish
excursion into the real world of SGM. I hope his master will give him a
decent burial.

Speaking of graves, the name "Jolyon" is probably having a resurgence in
Britain today, thanks to the popularity of Rupert Graves and the character
he played in the recent TV series of _The Forsyte Saga_. Simon and Nigel are
perennials, including in the U.S. although not as common there as in
Britain.

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-09-10 15:21:50 UTC
Permalink
>>Speaking of graves, the name "Jolyon" is probably having a resurgence in Britain today, thanks to the popularity of Rupert Graves and the character

Is it true that 'Jolyon' is just an affected spelling of 'Julian'?
Peter Stewart
2005-08-31 22:44:51 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Any randomly selected corpse, including his own, ought to be capable of
>> better work in genealogy than Roderick Stuart alive - doing nothing at
>> all
>> is certainly preferable to output of his standard.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> Have you ever actually seen the book, or are you, as usual, mouthing
> 'consensus' opinions you've picked up from dabbling on this newsgroup?

Yes, and if you troubled to check before spouting off you would find that
I've remarked on faults in the book that have not been not mentioned by
others. You are doing a "Brandon" again, projecting your own follies onto
another.

> I think I remember you saying you'd never seen Douglas Richardson's
> books, either.

I have STATED that I haven't seen Richardson's books, as you say, and it's
not an issue that you can twist: I have seen extracts that he has posted,
and I have seen the endless problems with his work and lack of preparation
for this in countless posts from material that explicitly went into the
book.

As to the ridiculous allegation that I "mouth 'consensus' opinions", haven't
you noticed that I consistently put forward opinions first that others hold
but don't often express until pushed to it by rather more vexation than it
takes for me? How else do you suppose it comes about that YOU waste
everyone's time & patience nagging at me instead of others?

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-08-31 23:00:13 UTC
Permalink
> you noticed that I consistently put forward opinions first that
others hold
> but don't often express until pushed to it by rather more vexation than it
> takes for me?

This at least is true. You do seem peevish and easily vexed.
Peter Stewart
2005-09-01 00:00:26 UTC
Permalink
John Brandon wrote:

[I wrote and he mangled in quotation:]
> > [haven't] you noticed that I consistently put forward opinions first
> > that others hold but don't often express until pushed to it by rather
> > more vexation than it takes for me?
>
> This at least is true. You do seem peevish and easily vexed.

"Seem" is the operative word: the preceptions of Brandon are hopelessly
inaccurate on this, as usual. I express what needs to be said on these
matters, and in doing so spare others the chore. I don't try to be
diplomatic when dealing with frauds and serial pests. Getting actively
riled has nothing to do with it most of the time, and deliberately
producing that effect is beyond Brandon's power. He is merely a gadfly
who imagines himself a wasp.

He CAN occasionally cause disgust and contempt, of course, and makes a
daily habit of trying, without regard to sense or decency and - as I
have said before - patently without self-respect.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-09-01 00:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Dear Peter ~

It is not appropriate to call newsgroup posters names such as idiot,
moron, fool, gadfly, etc. If you have an issue with a fellow poster,
you should take it to private. That's the right thing to do. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:
> John Brandon wrote:
>
> [I wrote and he mangled in quotation:]
> > > [haven't] you noticed that I consistently put forward opinions first
> > > that others hold but don't often express until pushed to it by rather
> > > more vexation than it takes for me?
> >
> > This at least is true. You do seem peevish and easily vexed.
>
> "Seem" is the operative word: the preceptions of Brandon are hopelessly
> inaccurate on this, as usual. I express what needs to be said on these
> matters, and in doing so spare others the chore. I don't try to be
> diplomatic when dealing with frauds and serial pests. Getting actively
> riled has nothing to do with it most of the time, and deliberately
> producing that effect is beyond Brandon's power. He is merely a gadfly
> who imagines himself a wasp.
>
> He CAN occasionally cause disgust and contempt, of course, and makes a
> daily habit of trying, without regard to sense or decency and - as I
> have said before - patently without self-respect.
>
> Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2005-09-01 02:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Richardson wrote:

> Dear Peter ~

Why am I now Peter and no longer "Peter"? Is this some belated
recognition on your part that I am actually entitled to the courtesy of
my own name, although without acknowlegment of your failed attempt to
misrepresent this as a pseudonym? Or is it just to undeline the general
smarm of your tedious refrain about making friends - that you will not
achieve with me anyway?

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-09-01 18:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Dear Peter ~

The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart wrote:
> Richardson wrote:
>
> > Dear Peter ~
>
> Why am I now Peter and no longer "Peter"? Is this some belated
> recognition on your part that I am actually entitled to the courtesy of
> my own name, although without acknowlegment of your failed attempt to
> misrepresent this as a pseudonym? Or is it just to undeline the general
> smarm of your tedious refrain about making friends - that you will not
> achieve with me anyway?
>
> Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-09-01 16:24:31 UTC
Permalink
> inaccurate on this, as usual. I express what needs to be said on these
> matters, and in doing so spare others the chore.

I suppose village scolds used to congratulate themselves in the same
way--"I'm a pill, and I know I'm a pill, but at least I'm saving others
the trouble." But did she know for sure that the rest of the village
agreed with her?
Peter Stewart
2005-09-01 22:49:46 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> inaccurate on this, as usual. I express what needs to be said on these
>> matters, and in doing so spare others the chore.
>
> I suppose village scolds used to congratulate themselves in the same
> way--"I'm a pill, and I know I'm a pill, but at least I'm saving others
> the trouble." But did she know for sure that the rest of the village
> agreed with her?

Again, thoughtless and inaccurate: I didn't say "the rest" of the
newsgroup's readers agree with me on anything, but rather I said "others".

Of course I know what others think on the matter under discussion - Brandon
in his deep ignorance would be astounded at the remarks that are made about
him and Richardson off-list. The degradation of SGM that they have brought
about with their self-serving deceits and follies don't go unnoticed in the
wider genealogical community, that both of them once aspired to impress.

But it's too late now.

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-09-02 18:39:54 UTC
Permalink
> Brandon in his deep ignorance would be astounded at the remarks that are made
> about him and Richardson off-list.

No, I'm well aware of the spiteful natures of some of these
dyed-in-the-wool genealogist types once they've been crossed. (Or
IMAGINE they've been crossed.)

> their self-serving deceits and follies don't go unnoticed in the wider
> genealogical community, that both of them once aspired to impress.

Speaking for myself only--what possible difference does it make? What
can the "wider genealogical community" do to me? I've already made
very clear that I won't be publishing anything further.

> But it's too late now.

Exaggeration and foolishness.
Peter Stewart
2005-09-02 23:37:05 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Brandon in his deep ignorance would be astounded at the remarks that are
>> made
>> about him and Richardson off-list.
>
> No, I'm well aware of the spiteful natures of some of these
> dyed-in-the-wool genealogist types once they've been crossed. (Or
> IMAGINE they've been crossed.)

Yes, we had some pitiful revelations along these lines about your hysterical
behaviour over co-authorship credit and your envy about other researchers'
access to sources.

>> their self-serving deceits and follies don't go unnoticed in the wider
>> genealogical community, that both of them once aspired to impress.
>
> Speaking for myself only--what possible difference does it make? What
> can the "wider genealogical community" do to me? I've already made
> very clear that I won't be publishing anything further.

The wider genealogical community can decide that you are nothing more than a
bitter, vexatious twit. Then it can ignore you, contemptuously. If you want
to kid yourself that this isn't galling, you will fail to convince anyone
else.

>> But it's too late now.
>
> Exaggeration and foolishness.

Not at all, it's a simple fact. You have gone beyond the possibility of
redeeming yourself in the estimation of most SGM readers, because even if
you started to behave decently from now on no-one could sensibly trust that
this was genuine & likely to continue.

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-09-03 03:34:54 UTC
Permalink
> Yes, we had some pitiful revelations along these lines about your hysterical
> behaviour over co-authorship credit and your envy about other researchers'
> access to sources.

Consider the source of those exaggerated statements. I was very angry
with Paul at the time, as we were supposed to be co-authors on that
article. I sent him all my information, but he wouldn't share a thing
of his with me. I had to wait to read the article in proof before I
saw the first word of his contribution to it. How's that for
collegial?

> The wider genealogical community can decide that you are nothing more than a
> bitter, vexatious twit. Then it can ignore you, contemptuously. If you want
> to kid yourself that this isn't galling, you will fail to convince anyone
> else.

I guess I'll just have to get used to this, prepare myself for moral
bankruptcy and complete devastation. I'll be penniless and insane,
trying to play a phonograph with a peanut, to quote ... someone famous.
Peter Stewart
2005-09-03 04:01:46 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Yes, we had some pitiful revelations along these lines about your
>> hysterical
>> behaviour over co-authorship credit and your envy about other
>> researchers'
>> access to sources.
>
> Consider the source of those exaggerated statements.

Paul Reed is a highly respected genealogist, whose word has a credibility in
this forum that you can't hope to match by self-serving contradictions.

> I was very angry with Paul at the time, as we were supposed to be
> co-authors on that article. I sent him all my information, but he
> wouldn't share a thing of his with me. I had to wait to read the
> article in proof before I saw the first word of his contribution to it.
> How's that for collegial?

If Paul found himself bound by an editor's arrangement in collaboration with
a hissing reptile, he was wise to keep his own counsel for as long as
possible.

>> The wider genealogical community can decide that you are nothing more
>> than a
>> bitter, vexatious twit. Then it can ignore you, contemptuously. If you
>> want
>> to kid yourself that this isn't galling, you will fail to convince anyone
>> else.
>
> I guess I'll just have to get used to this, prepare myself for moral
> bankruptcy and complete devastation. I'll be penniless and insane,
> trying to play a phonograph with a peanut, to quote ... someone famous.

Um, if it's all so unimportant to you anyway, why are you trying so vainly
to justify yourself above? Another case of hypocrisy, like your false claim
to give no attention to me when not writing replies to SGM, despite doing
obsessive & misdirected searches for my name on the internet and jumping to
absurd wrong conclusions when you couldn't find what was easy enough for
others?

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-09-03 04:38:00 UTC
Permalink
> If Paul found himself bound by an editor's arrangement in
> collaboration with a hissing reptile, he was wise to keep his
> own counsel for as long as possible.

Umm, actually, no, this isn't accurate. I got on very well with that
editor, the much-missed Miss Jane Fletcher Fiske. She and I had a lot
of work to fix up Paul's rambling, semi-incoherent sentences,
solecisms, misplaced modifiers, etc. (apparently he hadn't had time for
Neil to read the draft). I sent her a long list of corrections, most
of which she adopted without changes.
Peter Stewart
2005-09-03 05:12:40 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> If Paul found himself bound by an editor's arrangement in
>> collaboration with a hissing reptile, he was wise to keep his
>> own counsel for as long as possible.
>
> Umm, actually, no, this isn't accurate. I got on very well with that
> editor, the much-missed Miss Jane Fletcher Fiske. She and I had a lot
> of work to fix up Paul's rambling, semi-incoherent sentences,
> solecisms, misplaced modifiers, etc. (apparently he hadn't had time for
> Neil to read the draft). I sent her a long list of corrections, most
> of which she adopted without changes.

Even if true - which it patently is not - this would be beside the point.
(And anyway, Brandon sought to be credited as co-author, not as sub-editor.)

Note that the actual editor in question must be out of the way before
Brandon ventures to make such a preposterous charge.

We have all seen in this newsgroup that Paul Reed thinks and writes clearly,
and is by far the intellectual & moral superior of Brandon in every way.

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-09-03 05:27:47 UTC
Permalink
> We have all seen in this newsgroup that Paul Reed thinks and > writes clearly, and is by far the intellectual & moral superior of > Brandon in every way.

I think you do "grandiose and sweeping" very well, Petey. Charlotte
would approve, no doubt.
Paul
2005-09-03 07:44:53 UTC
Permalink
> Umm, actually, no, this isn't accurate. I got on very well with that
> editor, the much-missed Miss Jane Fletcher Fiske. She and I had a lot
> of work to fix up Paul's rambling, semi-incoherent sentences,
> solecisms, misplaced modifiers, etc. (apparently he hadn't had time for
> Neil to read the draft). I sent her a long list of corrections, most
> of which she adopted without changes.

John, would you like me to solicit Jane's response to this and post it on
the group? I will let my articles and the editors of those articles speak
for themselves.
Paul
2005-09-03 07:33:04 UTC
Permalink
"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Consider the source of those exaggerated statements. I was very angry
> with Paul at the time, as we were supposed to be co-authors on that
> article. I sent him all my information, but he wouldn't share a thing
> of his with me. I had to wait to read the article in proof before I
> saw the first word of his contribution to it. How's that for
> collegial?


At it again? That representation is ENTIRELY false.

I still have all the Mansfield files in storage. During the process of
writing the article, I got responses from you, John, that ranged from 'how
can you insinuate [sic] yourself into MY article' to 'you have done such an
incredible job that my [John Brandon] name should not even be on the
article.' I STILL HAVE THESE EMAILS FROM YOU PRINTED OUT. Note that if you
had never seen anything, how could you have made this latter response?

Your memory is strangely creative when you want to disparage me in public.
The proofs of the article and integration were certainly passed between
three authors, Bob Anderson, myself, and John Brandon, aside from the editor
Jane Fiske (who CERTAINLY would have provided Mr. Brandon with copies of
drafts at his request if he weren't already receiving them). What you
suggest here is entirely untenable. And in comparison, John, how long do
you think it took me to do the masses of original research that resulted in
a high percentage of footnote space in that article and commentary that is
clearly my writing, compared to the total amount of time you spent on some
printed sources? I was not paid for my efforts, and never asked to be. It
was entirely voluntary. How many dozens and dozens of hours do you think I
spent on that material? How many hours do you think I spent checking things
that never took up space in the final article?

John, on more than one occasion, haven't you told me that you purchase books
like RD500 and AR, and then in a matter of days afterwards, when you have
gone through them and they are no longer of any use to you, you throw them
away? I thought that unusual, and it caught me by surprise. Then how do
you remember the details from those books (use the ones at the library)?

The above should suffice to salvage me from the false material posted above,
but I wish people would not have to bring my attention to this type of
stuff. I begin to think too many people who disrupt this forum by making
personal attacks instead of genealogical responses suffer from Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (see below).

I think the following (below) explains why certain individuals on this group
continue to obsess on others they perceive to be a threat to their public
ego.

Now STOP THIS, be a benefit to the group, HELP some people, and stop
disrupting the feeling that used to exist on this group (one of helping
others and sharing information in any way that might help others). This
change has caused many to leave and the need for a moderated forum to reign
things in.

I have sadly seen this group fall into (because of a very few individuals) a
need to be competitive, mainly because someone has the need to chalk up more
'discoveries' than anyone else (even if these 'discoveries' have been in
print for decades) in order to prove oneself greater than all others
(because such recognotion could never come through the normal route others
take of publishing articles, or recognition from peers).

Get back to pertinent stuff! I certainly am (why does not a certain
individual cajole you into being collegial and making friends, instead of
this abuse?). Continued hypocrisy by certain parties becomes very old and
can be seen through readily despite how many times certain statements are
posted.


******************************************************************

The following clinical information from the DSM-IV:

***The DIAGNOSTIC and Statistics Manual, Rev IV, lists the following as
descriptive of Narcissistic Personality Disorder: ***


A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in
a variety of contexts, as indicated by FIVE (or MORE) of the following:


(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., EXAGGERATES ACHIEVEMENTS
and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate
achievements)


(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, BRILLIANCE,
beauty, or ideal love


(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people
(or institutions)


(4) requires excessive admiration


(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her
expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to
achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings
and
needs of others


(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or
her shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes


***CLINICAL FEATURES of Narcissistic Personality Disorder***


Patients with narcissistic personality disorder exaggerate their
achievements and talents, and they are surprised when they do not receive
the recognition they expect.


Their inflated sense of self results in a DEVALUATION OF OTHERS and their
accomplishments.


Narcissistic patients only pursue relationships that will benefit them in
some way.


These patients feel very entitled, expecting others to meet their needs
immediately, and they can become quite indignant if this does not happen.


These patients are self-absorbed and unable to respond to the needs of
others. Any perception of criticism is poorly tolerated, and these patients
can react with rage.


These patients are very prone to envy anyone who possesses knowledge, skill
or belongings that they do not possess. Much of narcissistic behavior serves
as a DEFENSE AGAINST VERY POOR ESTEEM.
[This last point is important. People with NPD feel they must have a high
profile, but harbor an unwavering belief that they are actually a fraud and
a sham, and somehow this might eventually be discovered]

***EPIDEMIOLOGY of Narcissistic Personality Disorder***


The prevalence of NPD is less than 1% in the general population and up to
16% in clinical populations.


The disorder is more common in men than women.


Studies have shown a steady increase in the incidence of narcissistic
personality disorder.


***Differential Diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder***


Histrionic Personality Disorder. Histrionic patients are also attention
seeking, but the attention they seek does not need to be admiring. They are
more highly emotional and seductive compared to patients with NPD.


Borderline Personality Disorder. These patients also tend to idealize and
devalue others, but narcissistic patients lack the unstable identity,
self-destructive behavior, and abandonment fears that characterize
borderline
patients.


Antisocial Personality Disorder. Interpersonal exploitation, superficial
charm, and lack of empathy can be seen in both antisocial personality
disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. However, antisocial patients
do not require
constant admiration nor do they display the envy seen in narcissistic
patients. A history of criminal behavior is not typical of narcissism.


Personality Change Due to a General Medical Condition and Substance-Related
Disorder. All symptoms are temporally related to medication, drugs or a
medical condition.


Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorder


Psychotherapy is the treatment of choice, but the therapeutic relationship
can be difficult since envy often becomes an issue.


Coexisting substance abuse may complicate treatment.


Depression frequently coexists with NPD; therefore, antidepressants are
useful
for adjunctive therapy


[from http://www.ccspublishing.com/j_psych/Narciss.htm and other sources]
Peter Stewart
2005-09-03 07:48:27 UTC
Permalink
"Paul" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zuudnRWjEv1GzITeRVn-***@comcast.com...

<chomp>

> Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
>
>
> Psychotherapy is the treatment of choice, but the therapeutic relationship
> can be difficult since envy often becomes an issue.

Pity the poor therapist who might try to deal with the seething envy &
tireless malice of Brandon - he or she would probably become the subject of
furious and ineffective Googling, then be told that he or she must be
someone else entirely and/or can't even exist because the deluded,
incompetent patient couldn't find what he wanted....

Well said, Paul.

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2005-09-03 16:20:20 UTC
Permalink
> I still have all the Mansfield files in storage. During the process of
> writing the article, I got responses from you, John, that ranged from 'how
> can you insinuate [sic] yourself into MY article'

Yes, I remember writing that one.

> to 'you have done such an incredible job that my [John Brandon] name should
> not even be on the article.' I STILL HAVE THESE EMAILS FROM YOU PRINTED
> OUT. Note that if you had never seen anything, how could you have made this > latter response?

I never wrote anything like that. Who's being creative now?

> The following clinical information from the DSM-IV:
>
> ***The DIAGNOSTIC and Statistics Manual, Rev IV, lists the following as
> descriptive of Narcissistic Personality Disorder: ***
>
>
> A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
> admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in
> a variety of contexts, as indicated by FIVE (or MORE) of the following:
>
>
> (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., EXAGGERATES ACHIEVEMENTS
> and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate
> achievements)
>
>
> (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, BRILLIANCE,
> beauty, or ideal love
>
>
> (3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
> understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people
> (or institutions)
>
>
> (4) requires excessive admiration
>
>
> (5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
> especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her


Too funny. Maybe the reason we haven't seen any articles by Paul in
the last three years is simple: he's now a psychotherapist (?)
D. Spencer Hines
2005-09-05 08:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

Pogue Stewart just continues to play the fool and dig himself a deeper
hole.

Alas, poor Yorick!

I certainly did not say Richardson "is ripping Stewart's guts out".

He doesn't NEED to -- Pogue Stewart does a simply marvelous job of
ripping his OWN guts out -- as the Richardsonian hook is firmly planted
in his innards.

All Richardson need do is keep the line taut and play him.

Pogue Stewart clearly needs to learn to read Standard English.

Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

As I clearly said:

Once again, Pogue Peter Stewart, like a stubborn mule, has the bit in
his teeth and is determined to run the wagon off the road into the
swamp.

Pogue Peter has an absolute Death Wish when it comes to making a fool of
himself on USENET and I must give Douglas Richardson high marks for
playing Stewart like a fat catfish on the end of his line -- one who has
swallowed hook, line and sinker and is ripping his guts out with each
struggle or tug on the line [post] which he makes.

Now that's a delightful mixed metaphor if I do say so myself.

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Leo van de Pas
2005-09-05 09:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Also Hines hides (protect) himself behind an unreachable e-mail address, and
so even if Peter Stewart wanted to contact Hines privately he couldn't.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Royalty For Commoners


>
> <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear Spencer
>>
>> You and Mr. Stewart need to take your argument to private. That's the
>> right thing to do. Please leave the rest of us out of it.
>>
>>
>> The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends...
>
> I was waiting for Richardson to deliver this lecture, but of course he
> couldn't risk ticking off Hines as that prevaricating fool is now 50% of
> the rotten support he has left on the newsgroup.
>
> Hines can't take the exchange to private e-mail, as he doesn't know my
> address; and I am not about to contact him, so it's just not going to
> happen.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>
Peter Stewart
2005-09-05 09:29:49 UTC
Permalink
""Leo van de Pas"" <***@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:014501c5b1f9$d9457cb0$***@Toshiba...
> Also Hines hides (protect) himself behind an unreachable e-mail address,
> and so even if Peter Stewart wanted to contact Hines privately he
> couldn't.

I do the same, and for good reason - my former e-mail address came under
spam attack twice, once when I had fallen out with Annie and again when a
contretemps happened with Richardson & his buddy Baxter.

Peter Stewart
pj.evans
2005-09-05 13:50:55 UTC
Permalink
The best thing to do with trolls like Hines is ignore them. Second best
is having a moderator disemvowel them (no, that is not a typo).
Insults tend to be counterproductive: they make the trolls feel better.

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
> Also Hines hides (protect) himself behind an unreachable e-mail address, and
> so even if Peter Stewart wanted to contact Hines privately he couldn't.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com>
> To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Royalty For Commoners
>
>
> >
> > <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Dear Spencer
> >>
> >> You and Mr. Stewart need to take your argument to private. That's the
> >> right thing to do. Please leave the rest of us out of it.
> >>
> >>
> >> The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends...
> >
> > I was waiting for Richardson to deliver this lecture, but of course he
> > couldn't risk ticking off Hines as that prevaricating fool is now 50% of
> > the rotten support he has left on the newsgroup.
> >
> > Hines can't take the exchange to private e-mail, as he doesn't know my
> > address; and I am not about to contact him, so it's just not going to
> > happen.
> >
> > Peter Stewart
> >
> >
Tony Hoskins
2005-09-08 22:43:45 UTC
Permalink
And, in the final analysis: so what??!! Might dropping this absurd line
be considered?

>>> "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com> 09/08/05 03:32PM >>>

"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> ***@btinternet.com wrote:

> Doesn't this tend to show that Michael is Uriah?

Not at all - Welch can't write or spell for toffee. Assuming HE exists

independently of Richardson, he has clearly posted material
occasionally
that was sent to him by Richardson, who himself tried to explain the
improved spelling in these with a fishy claim that Welch had a new
spell-checker: curious enough that Richardson knew this before the
problem
was pointed out by me, but it didn't last anyway.

If Welch was "Uriah" and telling people off-list that Uriah was in
Turkey,
why would "Yriah" then deny this and accuse ME of lying? Get real -
Richardson told Welch about Turkey as a lame excuse (all that Welch
would
need), not intending for him to pass it on. All three identies,
Richardson,
Owen and Welch, were then fool enough to ignore several references by
me to
"Uriah the Turk" before "Uriah" himself thought it would be smart to
deny
this falsehood that could only have originated with one (or all) of the

three.

Is this too hard for you?

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2005-09-08 22:53:03 UTC
Permalink
You think it shouldn't matter to this newsgroup that Richardson is capable
of such shameless lies?

So do you think we should all decide never to believe a word he says in
future, or do you wish us all to know that you had & somehow retain respect
for him as an honest correspondent?

Peter Stewart




""Tony Hoskins"" <***@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:***@CENTRAL_SVR2...
> And, in the final analysis: so what??!! Might dropping this absurd line
> be considered?
>
>>>> "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com> 09/08/05 03:32PM >>>
>
> "John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> ***@btinternet.com wrote:
>
>> Doesn't this tend to show that Michael is Uriah?
>
> Not at all - Welch can't write or spell for toffee. Assuming HE exists
>
> independently of Richardson, he has clearly posted material
> occasionally
> that was sent to him by Richardson, who himself tried to explain the
> improved spelling in these with a fishy claim that Welch had a new
> spell-checker: curious enough that Richardson knew this before the
> problem
> was pointed out by me, but it didn't last anyway.
>
> If Welch was "Uriah" and telling people off-list that Uriah was in
> Turkey,
> why would "Yriah" then deny this and accuse ME of lying? Get real -
> Richardson told Welch about Turkey as a lame excuse (all that Welch
> would
> need), not intending for him to pass it on. All three identies,
> Richardson,
> Owen and Welch, were then fool enough to ignore several references by
> me to
> "Uriah the Turk" before "Uriah" himself thought it would be smart to
> deny
> this falsehood that could only have originated with one (or all) of the
>
> three.
>
> Is this too hard for you?
>
> Peter Stewart
>
W***@aol.com
2005-09-09 15:15:58 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 9/9/2005 6:36:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:


> People do use this name in the U.S.A. (you're forgetting our penchant
> for Puritanical/ Biblical names like Asa, Jeremiah, Ezekiel ["Zeke"]).
> I'm willing to bet that Uriah is more popular in the U.S. than Simon,
> Nigel, or the awful Jolyon.

2002 Phone and Address Directory online at www.ancestry.com

Uriah 358 matches
Simon 44,592 matches
Nigel 2,424 matches
Jolyon 60 matches

Will Johnson
John Brandon
2005-09-09 15:21:51 UTC
Permalink
> Uriah 358 matches
> Simon 44,592 matches
> Nigel 2,424 matches
> Jolyon 60 matches

Is this US phone directories or UK?

Guess I should have known Simon (and maybe even Nigel) was more popular
than Uriah.

Personally, I think Nigel is almost as affected a name as Jolyon. Why
not just name the baby Fop ... or maybe Fopp (for that added, little
_je ne sais quoi_).
W***@aol.com
2005-09-09 15:49:19 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 9/9/2005 8:36:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:


> Is this US phone directories or UK?
>
> Guess I should have known Simon (and maybe even Nigel) was more popular
> than Uriah.
>
> Personally, I think Nigel is almost as affected a name as Jolyon. Why
> not just name the baby Fop ... or maybe Fopp (for that added, little
> _je ne sais quoi_).

It's U.S.
The US phone directory at ancestry is a useful way, I think, to discover odd
names in the families you're searching. Odd names may indicate ancestry,
since that same odd name may have been carried previously by an aunt or uncle or
grandparent.
I use this kind of search once-in-a-while. The only problem of course, is
that many odd names are hard to spell, and so a straightforward search
doesn't yield every document. For example Uel, Ewell, Yuell. I hate that one :0
Will Johnson
John Brandon
2005-09-09 15:56:51 UTC
Permalink
> I use this kind of search once-in-a-while. The only problem of course, is
> that many odd names are hard to spell, and so a straightforward search
> doesn't yield every document. For example Uel, Ewell, Yuell. I hate that one :0

Yep, Ewell is a wretched name. I also dislike Dudley as a first name.

Hatevil is probably the most unattractive name of one of my own
ancestors (many generations back, however).
steven perkins
2005-09-09 16:14:00 UTC
Permalink
How about Zorababel Stephens and Baalam Kidd?
SCPerkins


On 9 Sep 2005 08:56:51 -0700, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I use this kind of search once-in-a-while. The only problem of course,
> is
> > that many odd names are hard to spell, and so a straightforward search
> > doesn't yield every document. For example Uel, Ewell, Yuell. I hate that
> one :0
>
> Yep, Ewell is a wretched name. I also dislike Dudley as a first name.
>
> Hatevil is probably the most unattractive name of one of my own
> ancestors (many generations back, however).
>
>


--
Steven C. Perkins ***@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~scperkins/
John Brandon
2005-09-09 16:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Or Ammi Ruhama (for men), which was popular in the Freeport, Maine,
area in the late 1700s, as was Statyra for women.
Denis Beauregard
2005-09-09 17:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Le 9 Sep 2005 08:56:51 -0700, "John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com>
écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

>> I use this kind of search once-in-a-while. The only problem of course, is
>> that many odd names are hard to spell, and so a straightforward search
>> doesn't yield every document. For example Uel, Ewell, Yuell. I hate that one :0
>
>Yep, Ewell is a wretched name. I also dislike Dudley as a first name.
>
>Hatevil is probably the most unattractive name of one of my own
>ancestors (many generations back, however).

And what about Beauregard (given after US civil war to remember the
southern general) and its derivative Beau ? Won't help in a search
when the first name and the family names are in the same search box !

By the way, first names used as last names are a lot more usefull.
I have an interesting medieval case.

In 1471-1478 land records of Vignieu (Dauphine, south of France),
roots of my main line, there are the following persons (translated
from latin):

Barthelemy Hugon alias Jarret
Pierre Sibuet alias Jarret
Pierre Hugon

First question: what is the original name of Barthelemy ? You have
a Hugon with no alias, and 2 Jarret with an alias, then it is
obvious the original name should be Jarret and not Hugon.

Second question: what is the name pattern ? IMHO, it is based on the
Roman model, i.e. while we see Hugon as a complement to Jarret, it
is a first name and should be considered as a complement to the first
given name, i.e. a modifier of Barthelemy even if there is only one
Barthelemy there. But then, that name pattern is making wrong the
answer to the first question...

BTW, Sibuet is actually a first name in that area. I have seen it
in other families.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard - Les Français d'Amérique
/\/ www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1711
/ | www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
oo oo Mon association de généalogie: www.sgcf.com
J***@aol.com
2005-09-09 16:59:41 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 9/9/05 11:06:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:

>For example Uel, Ewell, Yuell. I hate that one :0

>Yep, Ewell is a wretched name. <

Ho, Ho, Ho!!! Try the Hewell version of this name. Wait until you find it
confused with Howell because someone couldn't tell the difference between
the "o" and the "e" in old faded script.

Jno
Tony Hoskins
2005-09-09 17:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Speaking of wacky ancestral names: how 'bout Ishmael Spink and Thankful
Bangs?

>>> <***@aol.com> 09/09/05 09:59AM >>>
In a message dated 9/9/05 11:06:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:

>For example Uel, Ewell, Yuell. I hate that one :0

>Yep, Ewell is a wretched name. <

Ho, Ho, Ho!!! Try the Hewell version of this name. Wait until you
find it
confused with Howell because someone couldn't tell the difference
between
the "o" and the "e" in old faded script.

Jno
John Brandon
2005-09-09 17:47:35 UTC
Permalink
> Speaking of wacky ancestral names: how 'bout Ishmael Spink and Thankful
> Bangs?

Thankful Bangs reminded me of my g-g-g-g-,etc. grandmother, Puella
Hussey. Even as a girl she was promiscuous.
J***@aol.com
2005-09-09 21:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Dear John , Tony and others,
I have a Thankful Trott, Hepzibah
Carter, Mehitable Swett, Sarah Ewell, Abigail Urin, Balthasar Willix and one
of my all time favorites, Lot Strange. Of course there was my ancestral aunt
Mindwell Ward, who after about age 25 didn`t mind so well and ended up married
to 18 theology student and later minister Lemuel Jackson as a result.
Mindwell`s mother`s name was Mary Clapp and one of her brothers , Samuel had a son
with the unfortunate name of Clapp Ward.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Loading...