Discussion:
Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
(too old to reply)
John Parsons
2004-10-13 18:52:08 UTC
Permalink
It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale (1864-1892)
who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor after his father, Edward
VII.

Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s after
the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to light. These
papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's patients, as the son of
a noble English family, a man whose parents were renowned for their social
gifts and who had done much to enhance British prestige around the world.
While the account in no way pointed directly to the royal family, the
British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.

Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court Circular
showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one of the Whitechapel
murders.

For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was later
made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that he was among
those present when a homosexual brothel in London was raided. Allegedly he
had gone there expecting the Victorian equivalent of an evening of strip
teases by pretty girls, and left quite disappointed.

No certain conclusions about his private life can be based on this one
incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries and letters of the time
that the duke carried on every bit as active a heterosexual love life as did
his father. In fact royal secretaries were petrified at the mere thought
that Queen Victoria might find out what her grandson was up to, and
elaborate strategies were developed to conceal the truth from her. Albert
Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love affair to another, at one point
falling desperately in love with a daughter of the Count of Paris,
precipitating a minor crisis as public opinion would have opposed his
marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the republican French government would not
have wished the stature of the exiled Orleans family to be enhanced by such
a marriage.

The attractive but mentally inert Albert Victor was engaged in 1891 to his
cousin Princess "May" of Teck, but the next January caught influenza while
hunting at Sandringham and died of pneumonia. (Princess May in 1893 married
his younger brother George, duke of York, who became George V in 1910.)
Rumor continues to insist that Albert Victor died of something of a more
social nature than pneumonia, but no proof of this has yet been found.

John P.
Subject: Re: The British/English Constitution
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:19:00 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/2004 1:25:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Even so, the idea of old Vicky slitting up a prostitute for kicks is one
that somehow doesn't work...
But, wasn't it supposed to be one of her idiot sons who was the butcher?
I
can't pin down a source for that right now. Perhaps later.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
G***@aol.com
2004-10-13 19:22:27 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.




Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince Charlie" at
Culloden?

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
James Dempster
2004-10-13 19:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@aol.com
In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.
Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince Charlie" at
Culloden?
Nope, it was the Duke of Cumberland.

To vaguely get this back towards medieval, wouldn't have been much
more interesting if George, Duke of Clarence had been alleged to be
Jack the Ripper, or would the madiera stains have provided the
essential clue that spoiled the mystery?
James Dempster (remove nospam to reply by email)

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
Frank Bullen
2004-10-14 18:12:39 UTC
Permalink
"Madeira" or should that be "Malmsey"?

Frank
Brant Gibbard
2004-10-15 03:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Bullen
"Madeira" or should that be "Malmsey"?
Frank
Yup, Malmsey, not Madeira.

Nowadays the word Malmsey is most often heard in reference to a style
of Madeira (the sweetest of the main styles), but in the Middle Ages
Madeira had not yet been invented, and Malmsey meant something quite
different from what it does today.

Malmsey was originally the name applied to wines from Greece, and had
it origin in a corruption of the name of the port of Monemvasia from
which most of them were shipped. The grapes weren't actually grown
there, the wine came from various other parts of Greece, particularly
Crete, but because it was then transshipped through Monemvasia that
name got applied to the wines. Unlike Madeira, these would have been
white wines, and would not have been fortified. They would
nonetheless have been fairly high in alcohol, and sweet, as no other
type of wine would have been able to survive the punishing sea voyage
to England.

The name of Monemvasia also got applied, in a variety of forms, often
as Malvasia, to a number of grape varieties from Greece. At a time
long after the Middle Ages the Malvasia grape got planted in the
Madeira islands, and when the fortified wine Madeira was invented it
became the source of one of the sweetest types. Later on the name
Malmsey was transferred from the grape to the style of Madeira.
Nowadays very little if any Malvasia is used in the style of Madeira
called Malmsey.


Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
Leo van de Pas
2004-10-13 19:39:05 UTC
Permalink
The Brits have had more than one Duke of Clarence.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <***@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
Post by G***@aol.com
In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.
Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince Charlie"
at
Post by G***@aol.com
Culloden?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
D. Spencer Hines
2004-10-13 14:55:59 UTC
Permalink
"But, wasn't it supposed to be one of her [Queen Victoria's -- DSH]
idiot sons who was the butcher? I can't pin down a source for that
right now. Perhaps later."

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
------------------

Mindless, Errant Twaddle....

Texans are supposed to be smarter than this pogue -- and have more
common sense and gravitas.

Hale is peddling and retailing Idle Rumours about his betters again.

Rampant Pogues love to use the British Royals as their target.

Hale fits the pattern to a folderol glove.
----------------------------------

"1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:

A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.

During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:

29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.

7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.

27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the
Royal Family at Balmoral.

2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of
Wales at Sandringham.

Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books. The story
of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has been
proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual
killer, a combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and
alleged lover) James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the
involvement of his father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last
victim.

Take your pick! They're all nonsense.

My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the
dates of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are
drawn, quoting from published court circulars. Mention is also made of
these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these dates in Michael
Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin Howells and
Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow, and
in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo Aronsen.

The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997
---------------------

'Nuff Said.

Hale Is Pandering Drivel And Nonsense Again.

We Have Another BENT NOODLE on our hands -- and posting Balderdash &
Codswallop -- an American this time.

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"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
John Townsend
2004-10-13 19:35:10 UTC
Permalink
To suspect Eddie of having been Jack the Ripper seems to me to misinterpret
the latter's social class and psychological state. I expect it gave Fleet
Street a good run, but Jack - in common with other such killers - was just a
sad, demented person of no consequence.

Best wishes,

John Townsend
D. Spencer Hines
2004-10-13 15:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

Hale posts MORE Errant Gibberish.

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

He was Duke of CUMBERLAND.

George Frederic Handel composed "See The Conquering Hero Comes" in honor
of the victorious Duke of Cumberland.

The flower "Sweet William" was named after Cumberland in England, but in
Scotland it is known as "Stinking Willie" or "Sour Billy." In Scotland,
the Duke of Cumberland is also known as "Butcher Cumberland."

DSH

<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@aol.com...
|
| In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
| ***@msn.com writes:
|
| British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of
| Clarence was meant.
|
|
| Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince
| Charlie" at Culloden?
|
| Gordon Hale
| Grand Prairie, Texas
D. Spencer Hines
2004-10-13 15:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.

Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <***@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$***@email...

| Dear John,
|
| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor asked
| for it to be done.
| Leo
Leo van de Pas
2004-10-13 20:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Dear Spencer,
So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are able to
detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the fact who was Jack
the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong you are obliged to tell us
what, according to you, is right. Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and
others) be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you read
this book?


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
DSH
| Dear John,
|
| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor asked
| for it to be done.
| Leo
D. Spencer Hines
2004-10-13 16:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Dear Leo,

More gibberish on your part doesn't help at all.

"Protect the Monarchy..."

Hilarious!

Your Republican roots are coming out?

Read what I posted by Greg King.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <***@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message news:001401c4b164$b22dabc0$***@email...

| Dear Spencer,
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
able to
| detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the fact who
was Jack
| the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong you are obliged to
tell us
| what, according to you, is right. Why couldn't Lord Randolph
Churchill (and
| others) be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you
read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com>
| To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
| >
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
| >
| > DSH
| >
| > ""Leo van de Pas"" <***@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$***@email...
| >
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and
the
| > | Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| > | several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| > | monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| > | the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| > | to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
asked
| > | for it to be done.
| > | Leo
Leo van de Pas
2004-10-13 21:42:42 UTC
Permalink
What I quoted was that Albert Victor was not involved, you called that
gibberish.

Then you start to defend Albert Victor------


If you attack people, just saying "gibberish" is not good enough. If you
want to become involved, which you do not have to, you tell them what is
wrong and why........

I only quoted what, according to me, was the relevant part of that book. I
did not say this is my opinion.

Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of the throne is allegedly
married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an Orleans princess
was not regarded as suitable.
If it came out that Albert Victor was married and had a daughter, can you
imagine the scandal? No, you can't and, according to you, there was no need
of a cover-up.

I keep my mind open that Albert Victor may have caused the murders, but that
they were done without his knowledge let alone approval.


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Dear Leo,
More gibberish on your part doesn't help at all.
"Protect the Monarchy..."
Hilarious!
Your Republican roots are coming out?
Read what I posted by Greg King.
DSH
| Dear Spencer,
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
able to
| detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the fact who
was Jack
| the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong you are obliged to
tell us
| what, according to you, is right. Why couldn't Lord Randolph
Churchill (and
| others) be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you
read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
| >
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
| >
| > DSH
| >
| >
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and
the
| > | Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| > | several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| > | monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| > | the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| > | to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
asked
| > | for it to be done.
| > | Leo
D. Spencer Hines
2004-10-13 20:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Leo,

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable." [LVDP]

You are just posting more gibberish -- without a shred of proof.

Tell us all about the Duke of Clarence's marriage to an Orleans
princess.

DSH
Leo van de Pas
2004-10-14 02:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Spencer,
You have gibberish on the brain!!

Lance Salway, in his "Queen Victoria's grandchildren"ISBN 1 85585 078 8 ,
page 37
Eddie did not long regret the loss of Alix. Within a week he had fallen in
love with another princess, Helene d'Orleans. This match, though was
completely unsuitable......Eddy declared he was prepared to renounce his
right to the throne, but Helene's father refused to allow her to marry a
Protestant.

Giles St.Aubyn, in his "Edward VII Prince and King", ISBN 0-689-10937-7 ,
page 105
Rumours credited Eddy with every vice and folly. Sarah Bernhardt claimed
that he was her son Maurice's father. It was even whispered that the Prince
was Jack the Ripper, regardless of unanswerable alibis provided by the Court
Circular.
Page 106
The third possible bride for Prince Eddy was one of his own choice, Helene
d'Orleans.
<snip> On 20 August, Eddy and Helene became secretly enganged......

Georgina Battiscombe, in her "Queen Alexandra"" , first published in 1969,
pages 180 and 181.
......Perhaps for this reason Prince Eddy refused to consider her (Princess
Margaret of Prussia); instead, in flat defiance of clear and positive
warnings from his wise grandmother, he proceeded to fall in love with the
most impossible of all princesses, Helene d'Orleans.
<snip>
So she (Queen Alexandra, then still Princess of Wales) looked on
benevolently whilst his sisters pointed out to him how very much in love
with him Princess Helene really was, and Princess Louise, now Duchess of
Fife, arranged that the two should meet each other frequently at her house
at Sheen, pressing home her point by inviting Princess Helene to Mar Lodge,
her Scottish home. There, in August 1890, the pair became engaged.

Three eminent historians and biographers, producing gibberish!! If only they
had spoken to Spencer Hines first!!

Spencer, did I ever say the Duke of Clarence MARRIED a Princess of Orleans?
You say I did, show it!!!


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Leo,
"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable." [LVDP]
You are just posting more gibberish -- without a shred of proof.
Tell us all about the Duke of Clarence's marriage to an Orleans
princess.
DSH
D. Spencer Hines
2004-10-13 23:00:45 UTC
Permalink
O.K.

Leo van de Pas ADMITS he CANNOT tell us about how the Duke of Clarence,
Queen Victoria's grandson, married an Orleans princess -- so the
"Monarchy had to be protected" -- somehow leading to the Jack The Ripper
murders, -- because it NEVER HAPPENED -- THERE WAS NO SUCH MARRIAGE.

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

That's one down.

NOW Leo needs to tell us about how Albert Victor Christian, Duke of
Clarence, "allegedly married a Catholic girl far beneath his station"
[Annie Crook].

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station?"

Leo van de Pas
----------------

The BURDEN OF PROOF is on Leo.

Yes, Leo ACTUALLY DID write that Rampant Gibberish.

Hilarious!

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

Next thing we know, Leo will be publishing royal gibberish, libel and
slander in _The National Enquirer_.

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"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
2004-10-14 04:00:35 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
Post by D. Spencer Hines
O.K.
Leo van de Pas ADMITS he CANNOT tell us about how the Duke of Clarence,
Queen Victoria's grandson, married an Orleans princess
====I never did. This notion was only in the befuddled mind of Spencer Hines
Hines's Gibberish, pratfall, Kawomph alright.

-- so the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Monarchy had to be protected" -- somehow leading to the Jack The Ripper
murders, -- because it NEVER HAPPENED -- THERE WAS NO SUCH MARRIAGE.
======what has Helene d'Orleans got to do with Jack the Ripper?
It only has in the befuddled mind of Spencer "I cannot comprehend" Hines.

The "story", it is a story because it has never been proven, is that Eddy
had married Annie Elizabeth Crook and fathered Alice Margaret Cook.

Spencer if you cannot keep your stories straight you should keep out of this
conversation.

I think your "editing" of messages is disgustingly dishonest, but not as
disgusting as the way you have treated Peter Stewart.


You have no prat left to fall on. Go and play somewhere else.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
That's one down.
NOW Leo needs to tell us about how Albert Victor Christian, Duke of
Clarence, "allegedly married a Catholic girl far beneath his station"
[Annie Crook].
"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station?"
Leo van de Pas
----------------
The BURDEN OF PROOF is on Leo.
Yes, Leo ACTUALLY DID write that Rampant Gibberish.
Hilarious!
It just doesn't get any better than this, Virginia.
Next thing we know, Leo will be publishing royal gibberish, libel and
slander in _The National Enquirer_.
'Nuff Said.
-------------------
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"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
2004-10-14 00:43:28 UTC
Permalink
"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy story.

THAT'S what I'm calling Rampant Gibberish.

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.

Further, Leo has not been able to present one SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord Randolph
Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders,
because they were trying to "protect the monarchy" -- in the person of
the Duke of Clarence.

When challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper.

Hilarious!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"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
2004-10-14 07:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Poor Spencer,
He tries one tack and comes a cropper, and now he is trying another? Well,
he has become very trying lately, even more than usual.

I think he has wasten too much time and patience of many people, I can only
wonder what is wrong with him? Too much alcohol or not enough medication?

I am not going to waste any more time on him, I am going to do, what lots of
sensible people have done a long time ago, I am going to kill file him.


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"
Leo van de Pas
-------------------------
Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy story.
THAT'S what I'm calling Rampant Gibberish.
Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.
Further, Leo has not been able to present one SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord Randolph
Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders,
because they were trying to "protect the monarchy" -- in the person of
the Duke of Clarence.
When challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper.
Hilarious!
'Nuff Said.
-------------------
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"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
Betty Owen
2004-10-13 23:51:42 UTC
Permalink
actually I thought Pat Cromwell
did a great job of the theories concerning the artist.
I think the artist had been commissioned by the doctor who had served the
royal family.

She did link a piece of rare stationary to him.
Some of his paintings are almost idenital to the murdered ladies... And I
beleive the murders did not stop... if you trace the artist and where he
lived.

She had a special TV show about this and a non-fiction book out about it....
She goes of the other suspects well and why they were ruled out.

Betty
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Dear Leo,
More gibberish on your part doesn't help at all.
"Protect the Monarchy..."
Hilarious!
Your Republican roots are coming out?
Read what I posted by Greg King.
DSH
| Dear Spencer,
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
able to
| detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the fact who
was Jack
| the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong you are obliged to
tell us
| what, according to you, is right. Why couldn't Lord Randolph
Churchill (and
| others) be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you
read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
| >
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
| >
| > DSH
| >
| >
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and
the
| > | Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| > | several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| > | monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| > | the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| > | to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
asked
| > | for it to be done.
| > | Leo
Brian
2005-01-05 16:23:21 UTC
Permalink
There is a slight connection between Sickert and the royal family but
if Walter was the Ripper it was because he had his own agenda. What I
find most intriging is that some of his drawings appear to be very
similar to some artwork that was sent to the police at the time.

We really have to rule out the "royal Conspiracy" Prince Eddy was in
France for 2 of the murders. And Sir William Gull has been made a
suspect from a television stand point.

Any true Ripper enthusiest must also pay close attention to James
Maybrick and "The Diary" There has been much mentioned as of late and
the diary itself has not been easily cast aside. The tests on the
diary have been inconclusive so there's still hope. Check out the
crime scene photo of Mary Kelly. Look at the wall on the side of her,
just above her arm. There, written (supposedly) in blood, are the
initials FM. Florence Maybrick, Maybrick's American wife. I'm a
graphic designer and I've done some photographic work. Every photo,
from every book I've seen with the Mary Kelly photo in it has the
initials.
Matthew Rockefeller
2005-01-06 04:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Royal Conspiracies are amusing, but usually not more than that. The one
that I think has the most truth in it is that of Hannah Lightfoot,
because even a marriage certificate has been found. In fact, I think
two marriage certificates have been found, if memory serves me correct,
which supposedly documented both marriages between George III and
Hannah Lightfoot.

Another one which is intriguing is Charles II and the arguement that
his firstborn son was actually legitimate. Of course the Duke of
Monmouth, the son, and his mother, Lucy Walter, both claimed that the
King was married to her. And one of the dukes of Buccleuch, a
descendant, claimed to have found a marriage certificate between the
two when going through old family documents, but supposedly burned it
thinking it would cause to much trouble if it were exposed.

Matthew

John Parsons
2004-10-13 20:56:15 UTC
Permalink
That was William, duke of Cumberland, the younger son of George II.

John P.
Post by Leo van de Pas
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:22:23 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.
Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince Charlie"
at
Culloden?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
Chris Phillips
2004-10-13 21:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Parsons
It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale (1864-1892)
who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor after his father, Edward
VII.
Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s after
the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to light. These
papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's patients, as the son of
a noble English family, a man whose parents were renowned for their social
gifts and who had done much to enhance British prestige around the world.
While the account in no way pointed directly to the royal family, the
British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.
Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court Circular
showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one of the Whitechapel
murders.
For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was later
made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that he was among
those present when a homosexual brothel in London was raided. Allegedly he
had gone there expecting the Victorian equivalent of an evening of strip
teases by pretty girls, and left quite disappointed.
(I suppose this is not strictly off-topic, as post-medieval royal genealogy
is within the scope of the group/list, and the Ripper allegations include
all sorts of stories of clandestine marriages and the like.)

As far as I know, there was no hard evidence to link Prince Albert Victor to
the Cleveland Street scandal, though there was a good deal of gossip at the
time. It was one of the others implicated in the Cleveland Street affair,
Lord Euston, who claimed - rather unconvincingly, I think - that he had gone
there in response to an advertisement for "poses plastiques" (the precursor
of strip-tease).

Albert Victor did indeed have an alibi, and the claims about the alleged
notes of Queen Victoria's physician, Dr William Gull, published by Thomas
Stowell in 1970, are extremely dubious.

I'd recommend anyone interested in the Whitechapel Murders to visit this
scholarly and informative website:
http://casebook.org/
The section on Prince Albert Victor as a suspect is here:
http://casebook.org/suspects/eddy.html
And there is even a set of message boards with extremely well-informed
participants, who can give chapter and verse on this and all the other
theories about Jack the Ripper. (Of course, there are also some extremely
ill-informed participants, as on all Internet discussion boards!)

Chris Phillips
G***@aol.com
2004-10-13 21:54:36 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 10/13/2004 3:41:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:

Hale fits the pattern to a folderol glove



I truly believe this is the greatest compliment I have ever received.
Thanks a million.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
G***@aol.com
2004-10-13 21:57:19 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 10/13/2004 3:41:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:

Hale is peddling and retailing Idle Rumours about his betters again.




Peddling is a process of attempting to sell an item, or idea. I did
neither. I merely asked a question. You are getting off your meds again aren't
you? And you do realize, don't you, that a Texan has no betters. We are simply
the greatest. Nuff said.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
G***@aol.com
2004-10-13 22:00:51 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 10/13/2004 3:56:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:

The flower "Sweet William" was named after Cumberland in England, but in
Scotland it is known as "Stinking Willie" or "Sour Billy.



You have the names correct but they were NOT the same plant in each country.
You should really get your facts completely correct prior to popping off at
your betters.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
G***@aol.com
2004-10-14 16:00:03 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 10/14/2004 1:41:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy story.

THAT'S what I'm calling Rampant Gibberish.

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.

Further, Leo has not been able to present one SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord Randolph
Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders,
because they were trying to "protect the monarchy" -- in the person of
the Duke of Clarence.






So far as I am aware NO ONE can PROVE anything about the Ripper murders.
Leo is just bringing up information that was put forward as a possibility. If
you don't recognize this perhaps you should go back to High School for
remedial English instruction.

Oh boy, of boy, here we go again. How long has it been since The Hawaii
flash has stirred up a good flame?

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
Leo van de Pas
2004-10-14 18:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Dear Gordon
For me he has flashed for the last time. I use a e-mail washer and all you
see is who sends a message and the subject line. There were two from Spencer
and I killfiled both.
Peace has returned for me.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <***@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
Post by G***@aol.com
In a message dated 10/14/2004 1:41:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy story.
THAT'S what I'm calling Rampant Gibberish.
Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.
Further, Leo has not been able to present one SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord Randolph
Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders,
because they were trying to "protect the monarchy" -- in the person of
the Duke of Clarence.
So far as I am aware NO ONE can PROVE anything about the Ripper murders.
Leo is just bringing up information that was put forward as a
possibility. If
Post by G***@aol.com
you don't recognize this perhaps you should go back to High School for
remedial English instruction.
Oh boy, of boy, here we go again. How long has it been since The Hawaii
flash has stirred up a good flame?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
D. Spencer Hines
2004-10-14 13:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

Translation:

Leo has run for the tall grass and is hiding out in his bunker, having
come a cropper on his anserine remarks about "protecting the Victorian
Monarchy." -- He is far too craven and pusillanimous to face the FACTS
and PRESENT EVIDENCE for his unsupported opinings. "So, when I can't
compete I just run away."

Ergo, Leo hides behind his ---- "I CAN'T COMPETE FILE."

Bad Show...

'Nuff Said.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <***@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message news:000401c4b21b$ccc15560$***@email...

| Dear Gordon

| For me he has flashed for the last time. I use a [sic] e-mail washer
and all you
| see is who sends a message and the subject line. There were two from
Spencer
| and I killfiled both.
| Peace has returned for me.
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia
---------------------------------

"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable."

| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
| asked [sic] for it to be done.

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he CANNOT present ANY EVIDENCE.

THAT'S what I'm calling RAMPANT GIBBERISH.

Greg King, in ATR, effectively said the same thing about the SAME BOOK
Leo is relying on for his air-headed remarks about a "conspiracy to
protect the Monarchy of Queen Victoria" -- SEVEN YEARS AGO. King
dismissed it thusly:
----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997
------------------------------

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.
The book is clearly a pot-boiler -- best used as a doorstop. Yet Van de
Pas touts it as some sort of reasoned account.

SHAMEFUL!!!

Further, Leo has NOT been able to present ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his airing and defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord
Randolph Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper
murders in Whitechapel in 1888, because they were trying to "protect the
monarchy" -- in the person of the Duke of Clarence.

Leo is quite willing to throw mud at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke
of Clarence and others long dead -- as believable co-conspirators in
some feverish, diabolical plot to "protect the monarchy" of Queen
Victoria.

Totally Irresponsible Behavior On Van de Pas's PART -- And A Very Low
And Scurrilous Blow.

Then, when challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper -- and runs for
the tall grass.

Hilarious!

How Sweet It Is!

I stand for the Integrity of Queen Victoria's Monarchy in this matter
and anyone who wishes to besmirch it in this scurrilous, undocumented,
fashion had best have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to BUTTRESS his case. I
listen to FACTS and EVIDENCE not rampant, cuniculan-pygan opinings of
the sort Van de Pas is indulging in.

He sounds like an old, wasted, farblondjet duffer meandering into his
dotage.

Leo does NOT concern himself with FACTS and EVIDENCE in this case -- so
to the dog house with him!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"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
2004-10-14 12:55:35 UTC
Permalink
"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable."

| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
| asked [sic] for it to be done.

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he CANNOT present ANY EVIDENCE.

THAT'S what I'm calling RAMPANT GIBBERISH.

Greg King, in ATR, effectively said the same thing about the SAME BOOK
Leo is relying on for his air-headed remarks about a "conspiracy to
protect the Monarchy of Queen Victoria" -- SEVEN YEARS AGO. King
dismissed it thusly:
----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997
------------------------------

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.
The book is clearly a pot-boiler -- best used as a doorstop. Yet Van de
Pas touts it as some sort of reasoned account.

SHAMEFUL!!!

Further, Leo has NOT been able to present ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his airing and defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord
Randolph Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper
murders in Whitechapel in 1888, because they were trying to "protect the
monarchy" -- in the person of the Duke of Clarence.

Leo is quite willing to throw mud at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke
of Clarence and others long dead -- as believable co-conspirators in
some feverish, diabolical plot to "protect the monarchy" of Queen
Victoria.

Totally Irresponsible Behavior On Van de Pas's PART -- And A Very Low
And Scurrilous Blow.

Then, when challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper -- and runs for
the tall grass.

Hilarious!

How Sweet It Is!

I stand for the Integrity of Queen Victoria's Monarchy in this matter
and anyone who wishes to besmirch it in this scurrilous, undocumented,
fashion had best have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to BUTTRESS his case. I
listen to FACTS and EVIDENCE not rampant, cuniculan-pygan opinings of
the sort Van de Pas is indulging in.

He sounds like an old, wasted, farblondjet duffer meandering into his
dotage.

Leo does NOT concern himself with FACTS and EVIDENCE in this case -- so
to the dog house with him!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"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
2004-10-14 14:10:49 UTC
Permalink
"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable."

| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
| asked [sic] for it to be done.

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he CANNOT present ANY EVIDENCE.

THAT'S what I'm calling RAMPANT GIBBERISH.

Greg King, in ATR, effectively said the same thing about the SAME BOOK
Leo is relying on for his air-headed remarks about a "conspiracy to
protect the Monarchy of Queen Victoria" -- SEVEN YEARS AGO. King
dismissed it thusly:
----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997
------------------------------

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.
The book is clearly a pot-boiler -- best used as a doorstop. Yet Van de
Pas touts it as some sort of reasoned account.

SHAMEFUL!!!

Further, Leo has NOT been able to present ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his airing and defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord
Randolph Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper
murders in Whitechapel in 1888, because they were trying to "protect the
monarchy" -- in the person of the Duke of Clarence.

Leo is quite willing to throw mud at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke
of Clarence and others long dead -- as believable co-conspirators in
some feverish, diabolical plot to "protect the monarchy" of Queen
Victoria.

Totally Irresponsible Behavior On Van de Pas's PART -- And A Very Low
And Scurrilous Blow.

Then, when challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper -- and runs for
the tall grass.

Hilarious!

How Sweet It Is!

I stand for the Integrity of Queen Victoria's Monarchy in this matter
and anyone who wishes to besmirch it in this scurrilous, undocumented,
fashion had best have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to BUTTRESS his case. I
listen to FACTS and EVIDENCE not rampant, cuniculan-pygan opinings of
the sort Van de Pas is indulging in.

He sounds like an old, wasted, farblondjet duffer meandering into his
dotage.

Leo does NOT concern himself with FACTS and EVIDENCE in this case -- so
to the dog house with him!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"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
G***@aol.com
2004-10-14 19:34:27 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 10/14/2004 2:56:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he CANNOT present ANY EVIDENCE.





Leo just got tired of your phagocytic manner.


Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...