Discussion:
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
(too old to reply)
d***@att.net
2004-05-20 06:46:20 UTC
Permalink
I just read the most accessible genealogy of a big chunk of royal history! The new genealogical standard work for the Plantagenet House of the English monarchy has just been published by Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc. "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In Colonial and Medieval Families" by Douglas Richardson (http://www.genealogical.com/item_detail.asp?afid=&ID=4894) is more than 975 pages full of who's who and how from Geoffrey Plantagenet to King Henry VII, and -- get this -- their notable descendants to colonial North America!

I'm no professional genealogist, but, having rooted around enough inside the LDS Genealogical Libraries here in Salt Lake City, this is the easiest-to-understand family-history book I've read. Apparently, it makes a bunch of historical corrections which have never before been published making it the most accurate so far.

...And yes, the book may be had by anyone, not just libraries!

Impressive.

David Nelson
Salt Lake City
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2004-05-20 10:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@att.net
I just read the most accessible genealogy of a big chunk of royal
history! The new genealogical standard work for the Plantagenet House
of the English monarchy has just been published by Genealogical
Publishing Co. Inc. "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In Colonial and
Medieval Families" by Douglas Richardson
(http://www.genealogical.com/item_detail.asp?afid=&ID=4894) is more
than 975 pages full of who's who and how from Geoffrey Plantagenet to
King Henry VII, and -- get this -- their notable descendants to
colonial North America!
I'm no professional genealogist, but, having rooted around enough
inside the LDS Genealogical Libraries here in Salt Lake City, this is
the easiest-to-understand family-history book I've read. Apparently,
it makes a bunch of historical corrections which have never before
been published making it the most accurate so far.
...And yes, the book may be had by anyone, not just libraries!
Impressive.
David Nelson
Salt Lake City
And the above from a proof-reader! See below from the archives.
Post by d***@att.net
=========================================================================
Date: 4 Oct 2001 08:25:45 -0700
Subject: Re: New Royal Ancestry for Dorothy Stapleton, wife of
Thomas Nelson, of Mass.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<snip>
Post by d***@att.net
By the way, I wish to thank my friend, David Nelson, of Salt Lake
City, Utah for his indirect assistance in finding the new ancestry for
Dorothy (Stapleton) Nelson. David is a lineal male line descendant
of Thomas and Dorothy (Stapleton) Nelson. He recently offered to
help me proofread the Stapleton line for the next edition of the
Plantagenet Ancestry book. As I was pulling up sources for him to
examine, it became clear to me that Anne Neville was Sir Christopher
Conyers' mother, not Mary le Scrope. The discovery of Anne Neville
was an unexpected but very welcome development of the proofreading
process.
On the topic of proofreaders, several people have already contacted me
and offered to proofread the draft of the forthcoming Plantagenet
Ancestry book. I still need more "eyes" to proofread the text,
however. If anyone wants to volunteer to proofread, please contact me
at my e-mail address below or by phone at (801) 680-5811 (mornings
after 9:30 AM are best time to reach me). My goal is to have a
reliable, error free copy of manuscript to send to the publisher.
Best always,
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Peter Stewart
2004-05-20 10:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by d***@att.net
Apparently,
it makes a bunch of historical corrections which have never before
been published making it the most accurate so far.
<snip>
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
And the above from a proof-reader!
Thanks for your good post, Tim - in his eagerness to sound like an
objective & independent reader, the blow-hard puffer inadvertently told
a little truth, viz "Apparently..."

The qualities that so impressed him aren't real after all, merely a
trick of appearances. All done with smoke and mirrors, as SGM readers know.

Peter Stewart
Jon Meltzer
2004-05-20 16:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks for your good post, Tim - in his eagerness to sound like an
objective & independent reader, the blow-hard puffer inadvertently told
a little truth, viz "Apparently..."
And he used his own name, never thinking that a one minute Google
search could out him.

Well, I guess that answers any questions I might still have about
using this book.
Phil Moody
2004-05-20 17:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Meltzer
Well, I guess that answers any questions I might still have about
using this book.
PLM: If you are implying that Doug's book is without merit - merely
based upon the remarks of a Proof-Reader, then you are a Fool. How do
you dismiss the opinion of Gary Boyd Roberts - a scholar who had no
part in the production of Doug's book? You may find Doug's comments
concerning Gary's opinion of his work to be untrustworthy, but I
believe Marshall Kirk's visit with Gary,and Marshall's synopsis of
Gary comments to be unimpeachable. As Marshall's remarks do not
contradict anything Doug has said concerning Gary Boyd Robert's
opinion of Doug's book; then I believe we have a true representation
of Gary's opinion of Doug's "Magnum Opus."

Gary B. Roberts is highly educated, but it has been said in this forum
that Gary's Publications are poorly Documented; so I can understand
why Gary would have a very high opinion of Doug's book - it being
profusely annotated with sources, which is in fact a mark of
superiority when compared to Gary's own work. I do not believe Gary is
"pulling anyone's Leg", elastic, or not, because compared to Gary's
own work - Doug's excels his own.

You can choose to value the opinion of Mr. Nelson more highly than Mr.
Roberts, but I for one am not foolish enough to do so. Mr. Roberts and
Richardson may share the same Publisher, but to my knowledge, the GPC
has no "Mutual Kiss Ass Clauses" in their contracts, therefore Mr.
Roberts' opinion is not influenced by out side forces, and his opinion
is wholly his own and unbiased.

Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Meltzer" <***@mindspring.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
news:<ZV%qc.49542
Post by Jon Meltzer
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks for your good post, Tim - in his eagerness to sound like an
objective & independent reader, the blow-hard puffer inadvertently told
a little truth, viz "Apparently..."
And he used his own name, never thinking that a one minute Google
search could out him.
Well, I guess that answers any questions I might still have about
using this book.
MWelch8442
2004-05-20 19:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Phil nicely said But they are entitled to there opinions. But with there
opinions they will have to pay the piper. Tim and others on this group have
bash Roderick Stewart's book for years. Which I have seen and isn't very good.
But he has written a book and sells copies because they have bashed it.Most of
the people I have talked to have said they bought it because of this group's
comment's not surprising at all. So everytime Tim, Peter, Rosie, and Hap thinks
it in his duty to dig up a person's comment from this newsgroup I'll post how
many books Doug sells.So if you four comment to me or about me I won't even see
it I'll just post how many more books you sold for Doug.
Cheers
Michael
P.S Tim thanks to you he sold 5 books so far would you like to make 6 or 7 keep
it up the good work
David Nelson
2004-05-20 23:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, Jonny, I'm THAT electronically illiterate.

MAYBE, I couldn't have cared less that my name is Google-able. MAYBE,
I presumed everyone knew, or would soon learn, that I was one of
Douglas Richardson's proofreaders.

Damn! I even SIGNED my name to my messages. Curses!

David Nelson
Salt Lake City
Post by Jon Meltzer
And he used his own name, never thinking that a one minute Google
search could out him.
David Nelson
2004-05-20 21:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Pete, Pete, Pete. What you and Timmy so obviously glossed right over
was the fact that, as Douglas Richardson explained soo clearly, I
proofread the STAPLETON account and some others, but nowhere near the
more than 205 accounts that his book contains. Would I, as a
nongenealogist, therefore, be surprised that, after its publication, I
discover its corrections to include many of which I was previously
unaware? Duh!

Clean up your acts. Your sniveling glee at seemingly catching my
Freudian slip is beneath the big-fish-in-a-little-pond superior
professionalism you wear as a sleeve.

If this is how your mothers taught you the good manners of welcoming
new members to a discussion, you've as much to learn about their
advice as I apparently do about the vast and expansive knowledge
locked up in your ivory towers.

David Nelson
Salt Lake City
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by d***@att.net
Apparently, it makes a bunch of historical corrections
which have never before been published making it the
most accurate so far.
<snip>
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
And the above from a proof-reader!
Thanks for your good post, Tim - in his eagerness to sound like an
objective & independent reader, the blow-hard puffer inadvertently told
a little truth, viz "Apparently..."
The qualities that so impressed him aren't real after all, merely a
trick of appearances. All done with smoke and mirrors, as SGM readers know.
Peter Stewart
t***@mairsphotography.com
2004-05-20 22:12:36 UTC
Permalink
KUDOS!
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Nelson" <***@att.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Post by David Nelson
Pete, Pete, Pete. What you and Timmy so obviously glossed right over
was the fact that, as Douglas Richardson explained soo clearly, I
proofread the STAPLETON account and some others, but nowhere near the
more than 205 accounts that his book contains. Would I, as a
nongenealogist, therefore, be surprised that, after its publication, I
discover its corrections to include many of which I was previously
unaware? Duh!
Clean up your acts. Your sniveling glee at seemingly catching my
Freudian slip is beneath the big-fish-in-a-little-pond superior
professionalism you wear as a sleeve.
If this is how your mothers taught you the good manners of welcoming
new members to a discussion, you've as much to learn about their
advice as I apparently do about the vast and expansive knowledge
locked up in your ivory towers.
David Nelson
Salt Lake City
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by d***@att.net
Apparently, it makes a bunch of historical corrections
which have never before been published making it the
most accurate so far.
<snip>
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
And the above from a proof-reader!
Thanks for your good post, Tim - in his eagerness to sound like an
objective & independent reader, the blow-hard puffer inadvertently told
a little truth, viz "Apparently..."
The qualities that so impressed him aren't real after all, merely a
trick of appearances. All done with smoke and mirrors, as SGM readers know.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2004-05-20 23:01:38 UTC
Permalink
And what this pair of buffoons missed is that Richardson described
Nelson as his friend - yet Nelson carefully didn't divulge (indeed he
disguised) this fact in his purportedly disinterested review of PA3.

The people asking for this book to be criticised only as a whole are
equally missing the point that such a compilation of genealogical
details CAN be no more than the sum of its parts. There is no bigger
picture in focus: it isn't a work of sociology, and the author's
mish-mash view of king's kin has been hashed over here to no purpose.

We on SGM have seen some of these parts, sadly inadequate, and have been
exposed to the author's slipshod methods and lack of essential skills
over years.

Hype and condemnation of the whole are irrelevant. There is no doubt a
good deal of correct information in the book, gleaned from the work of
others AND from Richardson's own efforts in going over their tracks
through a limited range of sources. The parts which don't have
sufficient support for concusions in the sources listed may nevertheless
do lasting harm.

To make out that this can conceivably be one of the greatest
genealogical works of the past century, worthy to be compared with CP
and ES, for instance, is utterly absurd. The clearer comparison is with
_Royalty for Commoners_, as Mike Welch suggested (but by Roderick
STUART, not "Stewart"). The benchmark of sales for assessing scholarly
merit is in every way (including explicity Richardson's own opinion) the
standard informing this publishing venture.

Peter Stewart
Post by t***@mairsphotography.com
KUDOS!
Terry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Post by David Nelson
Pete, Pete, Pete. What you and Timmy so obviously glossed right over
was the fact that, as Douglas Richardson explained soo clearly, I
proofread the STAPLETON account and some others, but nowhere near the
more than 205 accounts that his book contains. Would I, as a
nongenealogist, therefore, be surprised that, after its publication, I
discover its corrections to include many of which I was previously
unaware? Duh!
Clean up your acts. Your sniveling glee at seemingly catching my
Freudian slip is beneath the big-fish-in-a-little-pond superior
professionalism you wear as a sleeve.
If this is how your mothers taught you the good manners of welcoming
new members to a discussion, you've as much to learn about their
advice as I apparently do about the vast and expansive knowledge
locked up in your ivory towers.
David Nelson
Salt Lake City
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by d***@att.net
Apparently, it makes a bunch of historical corrections
which have never before been published making it the
most accurate so far.
<snip>
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
And the above from a proof-reader!
Thanks for your good post, Tim - in his eagerness to sound like an
objective & independent reader, the blow-hard puffer inadvertently told
a little truth, viz "Apparently..."
The qualities that so impressed him aren't real after all, merely a
trick of appearances. All done with smoke and mirrors, as SGM readers
know.
Post by David Nelson
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Peter Stewart
Phil Moody
2004-05-21 00:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Hype and condemnation of the whole are irrelevant. There is no doubt a
good deal of correct information in the book, gleaned from the work of
others AND from Richardson's own efforts in going over their tracks
through a limited range of sources. The parts which don't have
sufficient support for concusions (sic) in the sources listed may
nevertheless
Post by Peter Stewart
do lasting harm.
PLM: No, consideration of the whole is highly relevant. It is your
opinion then, that ES and CP should be thrown on the rubbish heap,
merely because they are riddled with errors and therefore they are
doing "lasting harm" genealogically, which is an accurate inference of
your remarks above. However, your rationale is not sound. One MUST
consider the entire reference in light of the percentage of Accurate
information contained within - just as Burkes is deemed a peg below ES
and CP for it's lack of accurate information on par with ES and CP. No
reference is without error, and that is why the whole must be weighed
before passing judgment on it's worth.

Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Peter Stewart
2004-05-21 03:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Hype and condemnation of the whole are irrelevant. There is no doubt
a
Post by Peter Stewart
good deal of correct information in the book, gleaned from the work
of
Post by Peter Stewart
others AND from Richardson's own efforts in going over their tracks
through a limited range of sources. The parts which don't have
sufficient support for concusions (sic) in the sources listed may
nevertheless
Post by Peter Stewart
do lasting harm.
PLM: No, consideration of the whole is highly relevant. It is your
opinion then, that ES and CP should be thrown on the rubbish heap,
merely because they are riddled with errors and therefore they are
doing "lasting harm" genealogically, which is an accurate inference of
your remarks above. However, your rationale is not sound. One MUST
consider the entire reference in light of the percentage of Accurate
information contained within - just as Burkes is deemed a peg below ES
and CP for it's lack of accurate information on par with ES and CP. No
reference is without error, and that is why the whole must be weighed
before passing judgment on it's worth.
You haven't read my remarks carefully - I wrote that comparing PA3 with
CP and ES was "utterly absurd", and I haven't suggested that ANY of
these works "should be thrown on the rubbish heap".

The trouble with PA3 is different in kind and degree from errors in CP
and ES. The former cites sources for specific statements (usually,
though some are quite unsourced) rather than lumping these together at
the end of articles.

ES has brought together a vast array of genealogies in tabular form that
are meant to guide historians primarily. The work is not confined to a
single ancestral range or period. For all its defects, this enterprise
is heroic compared to the mere updating of Dr Faris' work while fudging
the basis for contentious new versions of some lineages.

The outcome is that the well-established deficiencies of parts in PA3
MUST compromise the whole, to say nothing of the haphazard methods and
poor judgement of its author in his posted work beyond PA3, while the
many correct details (that can only be distinguished from muddle through
a great deal of careul checking by readers) are already on the public
record elsewhere and CANNOT make up for the deficiencies.

People who choose to swallow this book whole, and to purchase it on the
estimation of its worth by the author and his friends, deserve whatever
they get from it.

Peter Stewart
Phil Moody
2004-05-22 20:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
You haven't read my remarks carefully - I wrote that comparing PA3 with
CP and ES was "utterly absurd", and I haven't suggested that ANY of
these works "should be thrown on the rubbish heap".
PLM: Oh, but I have read, and understood exactly what you have said
Mr. Stewart, and I have not misinterpreted your remarks in any way. My
remarks are based on the entirety of your post, which the entire
gen-Med community had the displeasure of reading, and not merely the
passage I quoted, because I did not think your visceral remarks were
worthy of comment, but as you are trying impugn my comprehension and
understanding of your words, and misrepresent what you have said - I
must answer in more depth. Allow me to refresh your memory with
another quote from the same post I answered:

"To make out that this can conceivably be one of the greatest
genealogical works of the past century, worthy to be compared with CP
and ES, for instance, is utterly absurd. The clearer comparison is
with
_Royalty for Commoners_, as Mike Welch suggested (but by Roderick
STUART, not "Stewart")." EQ

Mr. Stewart, you compare PA3 with RFC, and yet you have the audacity
to suggest that you are not implying that PA3 belongs on "the rubbish
heap"? Even Mr. Van de Pas, who unabashedly uses every edition of
Burke's ever published - even wishes he had never purchased RFC; so
you are in FACT equating PA3 with a piece of Trash, and hence it
belongs on the rubbish heap in your opinion.

The notion you call "absurd", which is that PA3 is "one of the
greatest
genealogical works of the past century", happens to be an assertion
made by G. B. Roberts, and no poster on this forum has made any
assertion in kind; so in this instance, your insult is directed at G.
B. Roberts - who cannot defend his statement, because he is not a
member of this forum. It is cowardly of you to ridicule Mr. Roberts in
this manner, when he cannot respond to your tripe.

You are "PARTIALLY" correct when you say you cannot compare ES and CP
to PA3, and this is due to the Scope and manner whereby the two former
references came to be written. However, PA3 does share in common with
ES and CP the FACT that they are all Genealogical References, and this
is a common denominator whereby all three references are on equal
footing, and provides the basis for comparison. A genealogical
reference should not be judged on size alone, as you "?should" be
aware; although you seem to be suggesting that only "size" matters in
determining the greatest genealogical reference of the last century.

No one has suggested that anyone "swallow this book whole", which is
an ill-advised practiced for any genealogical reference, but rather
that an unbiased review of the book be published before condemning, or
extolling it's value as a genealogical reference. Nothing will
disabuse you of your low opinion of PA3, and you have made it
abundantly clear you have no intention of reading the reference in the
past; so I will not waste any more of my time on your narrow
mindedness, and personal dislike of D.R. and his methodology.

Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Hype and condemnation of the whole are irrelevant. There is no doubt
a
Post by Peter Stewart
good deal of correct information in the book, gleaned from the work
of
Post by Peter Stewart
others AND from Richardson's own efforts in going over their
tracks
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
through a limited range of sources. The parts which don't have
sufficient support for concusions (sic) in the sources listed may
nevertheless
Post by Peter Stewart
do lasting harm.
PLM: No, consideration of the whole is highly relevant. It is your
opinion then, that ES and CP should be thrown on the rubbish heap,
merely because they are riddled with errors and therefore they are
doing "lasting harm" genealogically, which is an accurate
inference of
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
your remarks above. However, your rationale is not sound. One MUST
consider the entire reference in light of the percentage of
Accurate
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
information contained within - just as Burkes is deemed a peg below ES
and CP for it's lack of accurate information on par with ES and CP. No
reference is without error, and that is why the whole must be weighed
before passing judgment on it's worth.
You haven't read my remarks carefully - I wrote that comparing PA3 with
CP and ES was "utterly absurd", and I haven't suggested that ANY of
these works "should be thrown on the rubbish heap".
The trouble with PA3 is different in kind and degree from errors in CP
and ES. The former cites sources for specific statements (usually,
though some are quite unsourced) rather than lumping these together at
the end of articles.
ES has brought together a vast array of genealogies in tabular form that
are meant to guide historians primarily. The work is not confined to a
single ancestral range or period. For all its defects, this
enterprise
Post by Peter Stewart
is heroic compared to the mere updating of Dr Faris' work while fudging
the basis for contentious new versions of some lineages.
The outcome is that the well-established deficiencies of parts in PA3
MUST compromise the whole, to say nothing of the haphazard methods and
poor judgement of its author in his posted work beyond PA3, while the
many correct details (that can only be distinguished from muddle through
a great deal of careul checking by readers) are already on the
public
Post by Peter Stewart
record elsewhere and CANNOT make up for the deficiencies.
People who choose to swallow this book whole, and to purchase it on the
estimation of its worth by the author and his friends, deserve
whatever
Post by Peter Stewart
they get from it.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2004-05-23 00:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Moody
Post by Peter Stewart
You haven't read my remarks carefully - I wrote that comparing PA3
with
Post by Peter Stewart
CP and ES was "utterly absurd", and I haven't suggested that ANY of
these works "should be thrown on the rubbish heap".
PLM: Oh, but I have read, and understood exactly what you have said
Mr. Stewart, and I have not misinterpreted your remarks in any way. My
remarks are based on the entirety of your post, which the entire
gen-Med community had the displeasure of reading, and not merely the
passage I quoted, because I did not think your visceral remarks were
worthy of comment, but as you are trying impugn my comprehension and
understanding of your words, and misrepresent what you have said - I
must answer in more depth. Allow me to refresh your memory with
"To make out that this can conceivably be one of the greatest
genealogical works of the past century, worthy to be compared with CP
and ES, for instance, is utterly absurd. The clearer comparison is with
_Royalty for Commoners_, as Mike Welch suggested (but by Roderick
STUART, not "Stewart")." EQ
Mr. Stewart, you compare PA3 with RFC, and yet you have the audacity
to suggest that you are not implying that PA3 belongs on "the rubbish
heap"?
No - I wrote that there is a clearer comparison between PA3 and RFC than
between PA3 and CP or ES. The latter I said was "utterly absurd",
the former I DID NOT characterise as exact. I said precisely what I
meant, and that is not at all what you are attempting to represent.
Post by Phil Moody
Even Mr. Van de Pas, who unabashedly uses every edition of
Burke's ever published - even wishes he had never purchased RFC; so
you are in FACT equating PA3 with a piece of Trash, and hence it
belongs on the rubbish heap in your opinion.
No - I didn't "equate" PA3 with RFC, I wrote just what is quoted above.
There are plenty of points of similarity between RFC and PA3, not least
in the authors' common lack of scruple in plagiarising other people's
work and getting it wrong in the process. Richardson and Stuart both
include works in their bibliographies that they have demonstrably NOT
consulted - remember Richardson's complete ignorance of _Gallia
christiana_ and the 'Instrumenta' sections that are a major part of the
organisation of this work? No-one could open a volume without realising
how it was arranged to provide medieval documents separately under the
heading "Instrumenta'; Richardson had cited this but didn't know the
basics. That, of course, is Stuart's phoney method to a "t".
Post by Phil Moody
The notion you call "absurd", which is that PA3 is "one of the
greatest
genealogical works of the past century", happens to be an assertion
made by G. B. Roberts, and no poster on this forum has made any
assertion in kind; so in this instance, your insult is directed at G.
B. Roberts - who cannot defend his statement, because he is not a
member of this forum. It is cowardly of you to ridicule Mr. Roberts in
this manner, when he cannot respond to your tripe.
I see - so Leo is lazy for not availing himself of expensive published
materials from the US, while Gary Boyd Roberts is a helpless victim
because he chooses not to participate in SGM or to authorise one of his
fellow-groupies to answer for him? Roebrts was quoted here, so the words
became a legitimate subject for discussion here.
Post by Phil Moody
You are "PARTIALLY" correct when you say you cannot compare ES and CP
to PA3, and this is due to the Scope and manner whereby the two former
references came to be written. However, PA3 does share in common with
ES and CP the FACT that they are all Genealogical References, and this
is a common denominator whereby all three references are on equal
footing, and provides the basis for comparison. A genealogical
reference should not be judged on size alone, as you "?should" be
aware; although you seem to be suggesting that only "size" matters in
determining the greatest genealogical reference of the last century.
The point made about CP and ES in relation to PA3 was not that all three
are genealogical works: I was considering their qualities, not merely
the subject matter or size. The scope of ES is material to the
comparison: I could just as readily have suggested _Honors and Knights'
Fees_ or any of a number of other works that throw PA3 into the shade.
Post by Phil Moody
No one has suggested that anyone "swallow this book whole", which is
an ill-advised practiced for any genealogical reference, but rather
that an unbiased review of the book be published before condemning, or
extolling it's value as a genealogical reference. Nothing will
disabuse you of your low opinion of PA3, and you have made it
abundantly clear you have no intention of reading the reference in the
past; so I will not waste any more of my time on your narrow
mindedness, and personal dislike of D.R. and his methodology.
I don't have personal feelings for or against Douglas Richardson - I've
never met him & wouldn't even know him by sight. He misrepesents his
work to SGM as scholarly, and seeks to give a false impression of his
skills and "training" to undertake it. I think exposing such an impostor
is a valuable contribution to a newsgroup focusing on the study he has
adopted as a self-proclaimed profession. My opinion of his work is based
on his presentation of it, including excerpts from PA3, and my opinion
of his dishonesty and obtuseness is equally confined to his posts to
SGM. The book itself won't come into my hands - I won't be buying it,
and I don't expect to see it in Australian libraries that I frequent.

Peter Stewart
Phil Moody
2004-05-23 00:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for verifying that Australia does have Libraries, so Leo can
borrow books, as opposed to purchasing them. Curiously, Leo thanked me
not long ago for supplying him with information contained in the
NEHGR, but he asserts he has no need for our American Publications
(Gen-Med being his panacea).

I think we have both had our say in this thread; so any further
comment will be counter productive, and OT.

Cheers,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Peter Stewart
2004-05-23 00:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Moody
Thank you for verifying that Australia does have Libraries, so Leo can
borrow books, as opposed to purchasing them. Curiously, Leo thanked me
not long ago for supplying him with information contained in the
NEHGR, but he asserts he has no need for our American Publications
(Gen-Med being his panacea).
I think we have both had our say in this thread; so any further
comment will be counter productive, and OT.
That kind of proprietorial comment is a speciality of StNeel, trying to
ensure he has the last word. It only appears to work on occasion - to
dull minds - because no-one can be bothered replying to total,
self-evident nonsense.

Of course there are excellent reference libraries in Australia - but as
far as I know not one of them subscribes to TAG or NEHGR. The interest
of these for Australian readers & researchers is pretty limited, after all.

I have seen only one issue of TAG, the 75th anniversary number, and it's
marvellous. This was kindly sent to me, but unfortunately I can't afford
to subscribe. I've never set eyes on NEHGR.

It should be obvious that Leo is mainly concerned with European
genealogies, and that he consults a wide range of sources to obtain
information for his splendid database. To carp at him for not getting
American publications in order to read book reviews many months after
publication of the works in question is - characteristically - absurd.

Peter Stewart
Leo van de Pas
2004-05-23 01:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Sadly, my new killfile system needs further studying.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Moody" <***@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Post by Phil Moody
Thank you for verifying that Australia does have Libraries, so Leo can
borrow books, as opposed to purchasing them. Curiously, Leo thanked me
not long ago for supplying him with information contained in the
NEHGR, but he asserts he has no need for our American Publications
(Gen-Med being his panacea).
====== My panacea in many cases are contacts, contacts willing to assist
and, if possible, I will assist in return.

My interest is a bit wider than just Gateway Ancestors into the USA, thank
goodness.
Specialising in certain families, no doubt is easier and cheaper. That is
where it seems my folly to have a wider interest. Dear Phil, how many copies
of ES Schwennicke do you have?
I think I have 27, Cahiers de Saint Louis? How many do you have? I have all
30.
How many copies of ES Isenburg/Freytag von Loringhoven do you have? How many
copies of Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Fürstliche Haeuser, Graefliche
Haeuser, Freiherrliche Haeuser, Adeliche Haeuser do you have? Then there are
those three superb books by A.C. Addington, which I regard as one of THE
genealogical publications of the century. How many Burke's Peerages do you
have? I have four, two Landed Gentry and one Extinct Peerage. Then there is
Nederland's Adelsboek, about 56 volumes, Nederland's Patriciaat some 29
volumes. CP, Turton and quite a few more. And you want me to spend money on
TAG or NEGHS? My other sources cover a much wider ground.

I wasted my time asking the local library about TAG and NEGHS and checked
about ES.
Of the Isenburg/Freytag series I found one volume----in Brisbane and not
available for interlibrary loans. The reaction to TAG and NEGHS I found
slightly devastating:

First of all, no Australian library subscribes to TAG or NEGHS as far as I
know. Both are pretty dreary reading for Australians, mostly concerned with
American colonists and mainly the upper bourgeoisie of New England. Dull as
ditchwater, with a very few medieval articles thrown in from time to time.

Do I need American publications? Would I like some? But then why ask? Phil
Moody knows ALL circumstances and bases his baseless accusations on them.
Realising he might be wrong? Just might be wrong? Not our Phil----he is a
waste of time. Why doesn't he go back behind the bushes to ambush other
people he thinks who just might have something negative to say about Douglas
Richardson or his book. After all that seems to be the only thing he has
been doing lately.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Post by Phil Moody
I think we have both had our say in this thread; so any further
comment will be counter productive, and OT.
Cheers,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Doug McDonald
2004-05-21 12:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Moody
One MUST
consider the entire reference in light of the percentage of Accurate
information contained within - just as Burkes is deemed a peg below ES
and CP for it's lack of accurate information on par with ES and CP.
You've opened a minefield here. The question is, just how accurate
ARE the current Burke's offerings?

My experience with the current so-called "Landed Gentry in Scotland"
is that it is as accurate as the CP or the SP, if not better. I have
found only one error in my own lineage in it. Note that this, of
course, is completely outside the usual flaming ground south of
Hadrian's Wall. Also note that this volume is not just gentry, it
includes peerage as well.

Doug McDonald
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2004-05-21 14:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Phil Moody
One MUST
consider the entire reference in light of the percentage of Accurate
information contained within - just as Burkes is deemed a peg below ES
and CP for it's lack of accurate information on par with ES and CP.
You've opened a minefield here. The question is, just how accurate
ARE the current Burke's offerings?
My experience with the current so-called "Landed Gentry in Scotland"
is that it is as accurate as the CP or the SP, if not better. I have
found only one error in my own lineage in it. Note that this, of
course, is completely outside the usual flaming ground south of
Hadrian's Wall. Also note that this volume is not just gentry, it
includes peerage as well.
It is a question of methodology. In principle Burke's method has not
changed: they ask the families concerned to update their lineages.
Burkes do little or no research themselves. If the family gets it
right, well and good. If the family gets it wrong, then Burke gets
rightly criticised. The advantage of this method is that successive
editions are usually improvements on their predecessors.

This method is totally in contrast to GEC's innovation, for a compiler,
of trying to find original documents (documents or their transcriptions,
not abstracts) on which to base his genealogy and history. The CP team
engaged in real research, the Burke's much smaller team still, as I
understand it, don't.

(And the charm and glory of this newsgroup is that several members also
do real research.)

For my money any genealogy book should start with a statement of their
methodology. There is room for low-key research, which can be produced
quickly, as there is room for exhaustive real research which takes
simply ages. But one should be clear on what one is doing.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
t***@mairsphotography.com
2004-05-21 00:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Actually I am not even interested in this book, what I was giving praise to
was Mr. Nelsons handling of you, of course being one who seams to be more
interested in listening to your own prattling and not what is contained in
the body of any message as it relates to that which it is a reply to (Baring
your own of course), I am sure you missed that.
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Post by Peter Stewart
And what this pair of buffoons missed is that Richardson described
Nelson as his friend - yet Nelson carefully didn't divulge (indeed he
disguised) this fact in his purportedly disinterested review of PA3.
The people asking for this book to be criticised only as a whole are
equally missing the point that such a compilation of genealogical
details CAN be no more than the sum of its parts. There is no bigger
picture in focus: it isn't a work of sociology, and the author's
mish-mash view of king's kin has been hashed over here to no purpose.
We on SGM have seen some of these parts, sadly inadequate, and have been
exposed to the author's slipshod methods and lack of essential skills
over years.
Hype and condemnation of the whole are irrelevant. There is no doubt a
good deal of correct information in the book, gleaned from the work of
others AND from Richardson's own efforts in going over their tracks
through a limited range of sources. The parts which don't have
sufficient support for concusions in the sources listed may nevertheless
do lasting harm.
To make out that this can conceivably be one of the greatest
genealogical works of the past century, worthy to be compared with CP
and ES, for instance, is utterly absurd. The clearer comparison is with
_Royalty for Commoners_, as Mike Welch suggested (but by Roderick
STUART, not "Stewart"). The benchmark of sales for assessing scholarly
merit is in every way (including explicity Richardson's own opinion) the
standard informing this publishing venture.
Peter Stewart
Post by t***@mairsphotography.com
KUDOS!
Terry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Post by David Nelson
Pete, Pete, Pete. What you and Timmy so obviously glossed right over
was the fact that, as Douglas Richardson explained soo clearly, I
proofread the STAPLETON account and some others, but nowhere near the
more than 205 accounts that his book contains. Would I, as a
nongenealogist, therefore, be surprised that, after its publication, I
discover its corrections to include many of which I was previously
unaware? Duh!
Clean up your acts. Your sniveling glee at seemingly catching my
Freudian slip is beneath the big-fish-in-a-little-pond superior
professionalism you wear as a sleeve.
If this is how your mothers taught you the good manners of welcoming
new members to a discussion, you've as much to learn about their
advice as I apparently do about the vast and expansive knowledge
locked up in your ivory towers.
David Nelson
Salt Lake City
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by d***@att.net
Apparently, it makes a bunch of historical corrections
which have never before been published making it the
most accurate so far.
<snip>
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
And the above from a proof-reader!
Thanks for your good post, Tim - in his eagerness to sound like an
objective & independent reader, the blow-hard puffer inadvertently told
a little truth, viz "Apparently..."
The qualities that so impressed him aren't real after all, merely a
trick of appearances. All done with smoke and mirrors, as SGM readers
know.
Post by David Nelson
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
2004-05-20 18:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@att.net
I just read the most accessible genealogy of a big chunk of royal history! The new genealogical standard work for the Plantagenet House of the English monarchy has just been published by Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc. "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In Colonial and Medieval Families" by Douglas Richardson (http://www.genealogical.com/item_detail.asp?afid=&ID=4894) is more than 975 pages full of who's who and how from Geoffrey Plantagenet to King Henry VII, and -- get this -- their notable descendants to colonial North America!
I'm no professional genealogist, but, having rooted around enough inside the LDS Genealogical Libraries here in Salt Lake City, this is the easiest-to-understand family-history book I've read. Apparently, it makes a bunch of historical corrections which have never before been published making it the most accurate so far.
This sounds like it was typed directly from the marketing literature.
(I recall that it was recently learned that a surprising number of the
positive reader reviews on Amazon were actually written by the author
under a false name, or a friend or acquaintance of the author.) "Most
accessible"? Stuart's Royalty for Commoners is readily accessible, but
is terribly inaccurate (and the various pedigrees on the internet even
more so), so perhaps that is not the best basis for evaluation.
Likewise, if you are left with stating that it "apparently" contains
many corrections - that you don't recognize these corrections yourself
but have been told or have read that they are there, one might wonder
the basis for your conclusion on the accuracy of the work.

Please, let's let the work stand for itself. There has been enough said
about this book that the last thing we need is everyone jumping in to
give vague reviews - "it's great", it sucks". If anyone has anything to
say about the genealogy in the work - what they like, what they don't,
please be specific, or we are likely to devolve into another round of
hype vs. condemnation, with the readers none the better for it.

taf
Phil Moody
2004-05-20 20:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Please, let's let the work stand for itself. There has been enough said
about this book that the last thing we need is everyone jumping in to
give vague reviews - "it's great", it sucks". If anyone has
anything to
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
say about the genealogy in the work - what they like, what they don't,
please be specific, or we are likely to devolve into another round of
hype vs. condemnation, with the readers none the better for it.
PLM: I agree completely, the work should be considered on the whole,
before one condemns it, and I'm asking nothing more. There are no
critical reviews of the book yet, and few people have seen the
published work, but of those who have seen the finished product, such
as M. Kirk and G. B. Roberts; I do trust their tentative observations
based on their cursory examination of the finished product. Time will
be needed before a non-biased critical review will be available (hmm,
TAG, NEHGR, or TMR).

My posts are only intended to keep Doug's detractors from being the
only voice anyone reads, as it appeared to me as though they were
running amok. I am not a biased advocate of Doug's publication, but
rather more a proponent of objectivity, and there can be none until we
have Doug's work in hand, and consider it on the whole. The past
piecemeal dissection of portions of Doug's research does not
satisfactorily address the whole body of his work, and a good deal of
the criticism has been visceral in nature, IMHO.

I look forward to the day we can objectively discuss the published
work.

Best Wishes,
Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <***@po.cwru.edu>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: "Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by d***@att.net
I just read the most accessible genealogy of a big chunk of royal
history! The new genealogical standard work for the Plantagenet House
of the English monarchy has just been published by Genealogical
Publishing Co. Inc. "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In Colonial and
Medieval Families" by Douglas Richardson
(http://www.genealogical.com/item_detail.asp?afid=&ID=4894) is more
than 975 pages full of who's who and how from Geoffrey Plantagenet to
King Henry VII, and -- get this -- their notable descendants to
colonial North America!
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by d***@att.net
I'm no professional genealogist, but, having rooted around enough
inside the LDS Genealogical Libraries here in Salt Lake City, this is
the easiest-to-understand family-history book I've read. Apparently,
it makes a bunch of historical corrections which have never before
been published making it the most accurate so far.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
This sounds like it was typed directly from the marketing
literature.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
(I recall that it was recently learned that a surprising number of the
positive reader reviews on Amazon were actually written by the
author
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
under a false name, or a friend or acquaintance of the author.)
"Most
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
accessible"? Stuart's Royalty for Commoners is readily accessible, but
is terribly inaccurate (and the various pedigrees on the internet even
more so), so perhaps that is not the best basis for evaluation.
Likewise, if you are left with stating that it "apparently" contains
many corrections - that you don't recognize these corrections
yourself
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
but have been told or have read that they are there, one might
wonder
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
the basis for your conclusion on the accuracy of the work.
Please, let's let the work stand for itself. There has been enough said
about this book that the last thing we need is everyone jumping in to
give vague reviews - "it's great", it sucks". If anyone has
anything to
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
say about the genealogy in the work - what they like, what they don't,
please be specific, or we are likely to devolve into another round of
hype vs. condemnation, with the readers none the better for it.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
2004-05-20 23:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
I just read the most accessible genealogy of a big chunk of royal history...
This sounds like it was typed directly from the marketing literature.
(I recall that it was recently learned that a surprising number of the
positive reader reviews on Amazon were actually written by the author
under a false name, or a friend or acquaintance of the author.) ...
Todd, lest there be any misunderstanding: are you just drawing a
cautionary analogy, or does this incident refer to the book and compiler
under discussion in this thread?

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/
Todd A. Farmerie
2004-05-21 00:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
I just read the most accessible genealogy of a big chunk of royal history...
This sounds like it was typed directly from the marketing literature.
(I recall that it was recently learned that a surprising number of the
positive reader reviews on Amazon were actually written by the author
under a false name, or a friend or acquaintance of the author.) ...
Todd, lest there be any misunderstanding: are you just drawing a
cautionary analogy, or does this incident refer to the book and compiler
under discussion in this thread?
I was just pointing out that this is something to beware of when a
glowing review is put forward in an open forum by a member of the
general public (not an invited formal published review), particularly
when the reviewer derives from the same place as the author and the
review reads more like hype than an informed and balanced evaluation.
Given that warning and what else has been posted in this thread, people
can draw their own conclusion as to whether it is likely to apply in
this specific case.

taf
Brad Verity
2004-05-20 23:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by d***@att.net
I just read the most accessible genealogy of a big chunk of royal history!
That's wonderful. You know, you're very lucky. Many here on the
newsgroup, even those who paid $75 to the author almost three years
ago, haven't had any access to this, with the exception of some
excerpts that the author had posted.

Having had to hear about it for over three years, I'm glad it's now
the most accessible royal genealogical work around. I'm especially
glad that those who paid money for it are going to receive their
copies.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by d***@att.net
The new genealogical standard work for the Plantagenet House of the English monarchy has just been published by Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc.
Ummm, except that it's not new. It is the 3rd edition (though
expanded, yes) of a work that has been published since 1996.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by d***@att.net
"Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In Colonial and Medieval Families" by Douglas Richardson (http://www.genealogical.com/item_detail.asp?afid=&ID=4894) is more than 975 pages full of who's who and how from Geoffrey Plantagenet to King Henry VII, and -- get this -- their notable descendants to colonial North America!
Wow! Perhaps, since this is your first post to the newsgroup, you're
not aware that we have been hearing about this book, and what it is,
since at least early 2001.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by d***@att.net
I'm no professional genealogist,
Me neither.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by d***@att.net
but, having rooted around enough inside the LDS Genealogical Libraries here in Salt Lake City,
I'm going to make my first trip to those Libraries in October - I'm
very excited.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by d***@att.net
this is the easiest-to-understand family-history book I've read.
From the excerpts that the author has shared on the newsgroup, it
appears the format that was created by the late Dr. David Faris, has
been maintained. I constantly refer to PA 1st edition, and agree that
the format is incredibly user-friendly.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by d***@att.net
Apparently, it makes a bunch of historical corrections which have never before been published making it the most accurate so far.
The most accurate what? Edition of Plantagenet Ancestry? Genealogy
of a big chunk of royal history? Not all of the excerpts the author
posted to the newsgroup have been accurate, though they certainly have
been detailed.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
This sounds like it was typed directly from the marketing literature.
If it wasn't, I vote David Nelson as a definite person to quote on the
dust jacket blurb.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
(I recall that it was recently learned that a surprising number of the
positive reader reviews on Amazon were actually written by the author
under a false name, or a friend or acquaintance of the author.)
Reviews are now more about marketing than about anything else, so
truth/accuracy takes a backseat to spin/fraud.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
"Most
accessible"? Stuart's Royalty for Commoners is readily accessible, but
is terribly inaccurate (and the various pedigrees on the internet even
more so), so perhaps that is not the best basis for evaluation.
And as I pointed out above, it hasn't been accessible at all up until
this past week, though it's been discussed, sold, and actively
promoted for three years.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Likewise, if you are left with stating that it "apparently" contains
many corrections - that you don't recognize these corrections yourself
but have been told or have read that they are there, one might wonder
the basis for your conclusion on the accuracy of the work.
Well, we know Mr. Nelson was a proofreader of sections of the book, so
maybe he's referring to the Conyers/Neville/Scrope re-assignment of
maternity that resulted from his efforts.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Please, let's let the work stand for itself.
Yes.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
There has been enough said
about this book that the last thing we need is everyone jumping in to
give vague reviews - "it's great", it sucks".
I'm looking forward to the balanced reviews once the book has been
digested in full.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
If anyone has anything to
say about the genealogy in the work - what they like, what they don't,
please be specific, or we are likely to devolve into another round of
hype vs. condemnation, with the readers none the better for it.
Once I get around to reading it, I will be specific about the
genealogy within it, as I was with the Beaufort/Stradling/Dennis
excerpt that was posted to the newsgroup.

I do have a few points to make in general, though, about this
discussion, with the full disclaimer that I haven't set eyes on the
book itself.

* In all of the praise & marketing surrounding the book's release, Dr.
Faris has fallen by the wayside. Douglas Richardson has pushed the
lines of descent back from Henry III to Geoffrey Plantagenet, and
expanded to include some new lines and illegitimate descents. But the
basic "easy-to-use" format that keeps being touted was created by
David Faris. One does not expect Peter Jackson to receive Best
Original Screenplay for 'Lord of the Rings'. The same idea should
apply to Plantagenet Ancestry.
* No one has ever said this book is without merit. It is (sight
unseen) a major achievement in compilation. This is a form of
research that takes hours of blood, sweat and tears. Relevant
information is extracted from volume upon volume of various published
works, catalogue database indexes, etc. But this is not "original"
research. A deduction made from compiled information can be original
if the author came to it himself, but this doesn't make the compiler
an expert in medieval research. For this, one would need skill in
reading and interpreting the primary sources/original records. For
example, rather than relying on a statement CP makes (even if CP lists
the sources it used to derive its statement), an expert in medieval
research would examine the original records.
* I myself am no expert in medieval research - I cannot transcribe or
translate original records of the period. I can compile and deduce
pretty decently, though, and when I get around to checking out this
new "most accessible genealogy of a big chunk of royal history", it is
with those skills that I'll conclude its merits.

Cheers, --------Brad
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...