Barbe de Lebarten
wjhonson
http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en&m=NG&n=Barbe+de+Lebarten&t=PN
specifies that the mother of
Oda de Verdun
who (Oda) married Lambert the Count of Louvain
thus becoming ancestral to many if not all of us and Diana, Charles
and Fergie as well
Was a Barbe de Lebarten.
Leo does not have this. He has no mother in this spot.
Does this have any support?
The source they cite at Roglo just says Aurejac, nothing more.
Will Johnson
jhigg...@yahoo.com
FWIW, the reference to "Aurejac" is to the database of Arnaud Aurejac,
available at:
http://gw0.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=aurejac&lang=en
You will quickly note that the database does not display sources -
which of course does not mean that its creator does not HAVE sources
for his data. When I've had occasion to compare his data with
commonly accepted sources, I've found it to be quite reliable. Others
will perhaps reach other conclusions....And of course you can always
attempt to contact M. Aurejac for information regarding his sources.
wjho...@aol.com
------------------------------------------
It may be that Mr Aurejac has sources but when I put Barbe Lebarten or
Otton (or Othon) Lebarten into Google Books I get... nothing at all.0D
That makes me pause to wonder. Surely someone has written something
about these people.
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhiggins...@yahoo.com
> To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
> Sent: Thu, 7 May 2009 8:27 pm
> Subject: Re: Barbe de Lebarten
>
> On May 7, 4:12 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The Roglo database here
>
> >http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en&m=NG&n=Barbe+de+Lebarten&t=PN
>
> > specifies that the mother of
> > Oda de Verdun
> > who (Oda) married Lambert the Count of Louvain
>
> > thus becoming ancestral to many if not all of us and Diana, Charles
> > and Fergie as well
>
> > Was a Barbe de Lebarten.
>
> > Leo does not have this. He has no mother in this spot.
> > Does this have any support?
> > The source they cite at Roglo just says Aurejac, nothing more.
>
> > Will Johnson
>
> FWIW, the reference to "Aurejac" is to the database of Arnaud Aurejac,
>
> You will quickly note that the database does not display sources -
> which of course does not mean that its creator does not HAVE sources
> for his data. When I've had occasion to compare his data with
> commonly accepted sources, I've found it to be quite reliable. Others
> will perhaps reach other conclusions....And of course you can always
> attempt to contact M. Aurejac for information regarding his sources.>>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> It may be that Mr Aurejac has sources but when I put Barbe Lebarten or
> Otton (or Othon) Lebarten into Google Books I get... nothing at all.0D
>
> That makes me pause to wonder. Surely someone has written something
> about these people.
It should be obvious that not everything that's been written
(especially in languages other than English) is available on Google
Books. The fact that a particular search query does not yield results
in Google Books should not lead to the conclusion (or even a
hyptthesis) that the information is wrong. It just means that you
need to do more research.
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> It should be obvious that not everything that's been written
> (especially in languages other than English) is available on Google
> Books. The fact that a particular search query does not yield results
> in Google Books should not lead to the conclusion (or even a
> hyptthesis) that the information is wrong. It just means that you
> need to do more research.>>
----------------------------------
The burden is not on *me* to find evidence for what someone else states.
The burden is on them.
And yes I think if Google Books does not even *mention* this surname in
this time period, whatsover, that is fairly good evidence that there is a
problem.
Leo uses ES for a lot of his citations. Evidently this line is not there
either is it?
Will
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322931x1201367171/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&
bcd=May5509AvgfooterNO115)
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
de Lebarten with dates and filiation.
The most common and easy source for start any search - wikipedia - on
Godefroy II has "Mère: on cite Barbe de Lebarten, sans en être
formellement assuré"
"Mother: Barbe de Lebarten is cited without any formal guaranty".
Maybe the "burden" is not yours but you would be better advised to do
some basic homework before starting a topic.
btw most of ROGLO "sorcerers" and Geneanet base-owners has an approach
distinct to Genealogics. With very few exceptions as the portuguese
Manuel Abranches de Soveral, they accept anything that is not formally
disproved. Personally I never found in M. Aurejac anything that is
blatantly wrong but he certainly has unsourced data.
Regards
Francisco
(Portugal)
On 8 Maio, 19:51, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/8/2009 9:10:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> jhiggins...@yahoo.com writes:
> > It should be obvious that not everything that's been written
> > (especially in languages other than English) is available on Google
> > Books. The fact that a particular search query does not yield results
> > in Google Books should not lead to the conclusion (or even a
> > hyptthesis) that the information is wrong. It just means that you
> > need to do more research.>>
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> The burden is not on *me* to find evidence for what someone else states.
> The burden is on them.
> And yes I think if Google Books does not even *mention* this surname in
> this time period, whatsover, that is fairly good evidence that there is a
> problem.
>
> Leo uses ES for a lot of his citations. Evidently this line is not there
> either is it?
>
> Will
>
> **************
> A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
> steps!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322931x1201367171/aol?red...
> bcd=May5509AvgfooterNO115)
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> In a message dated 5/8/2009 9:10:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> > It should be obvious that not everything that's been written
> > (especially in languages other than English) is available on Google
> > Books. The fact that a particular search query does not yield results
> > in Google Books should not lead to the conclusion (or even a
> > hyptthesis) that the information is wrong. It just means that you
> > need to do more research.>>
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> The burden is not on *me* to find evidence for what someone else states.
> The burden is on them.
> And yes I think if Google Books does not even *mention* this surname in
> this time period, whatsover, that is fairly good evidence that there is a
> problem.
>
> Leo uses ES for a lot of his citations. Evidently this line is not there
> either is it?
>
> Will
>
The "someone" in this case whom you say "the burden is on" is M.
Aurejac. It's shortsighted to assert or imply that he's wrong simply
because you can't readily find evidence for what he states. All of us
have access to a certain range of sources - some more than others, and
some sources of better quality than others. M. Aurejac seems to be a
serious researcher (whether or not he's a "professional genealogist"),
and you should give him the courtesy of at least asking him for his
sources before disparaging his work in a public forum.
Google Books is in effect a library, and like all libraries it's not
omniscient. If the information in question is sufficiently important
to you and you can't find it in one library, you don't just assume
that's it's wrong - you go looking in other libraries. Of course, the
library analogy may be lost on you, since you've previously expressed
a disdain for such institutions. :-)
Leo cites the old ES (Isenburg version) for Oda de Verdun and her
parentage. I don't have access to that version, but the newer ESNF
(Schwennicke version) in vol. 1.2 shows the same information that Leo
has. (Of course, ESNF is not on Google Books, so it's a source you'd
never check out anyway.) But ESNF's failure to mention Barbe de
Lebarten does not mean that the Aurejac database is wrong, since ESNF
is notoriously weak when it moves beyond its German base.
jhigg...@yahoo.com
It also seems appropriate to add one more note here, from a post by a
certain Will Johnson today in a different thread:
"Anyone who wants the fish, and wants lots of fish, better learn how
to fish!
Cuz there aren't quite as many people willing to give you free fish as
you'd wish. "
wjho...@aol.com
It's not a reliable source unless it cites its evidence.
You should know that I would have already consulted that.
But it doesn't move us forward at all.
There are dozens of online databases with King Arthur as well.
That doesn't mean that they are based on anything except the fantasy of
one person at one time, and then copied over and over without any
evidence, even that such a person existed at all.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Francisco Tavares de Almeida
<francisco.tav...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, 8 May 2009 2:22 pm
Subject: Re: Barbe de Lebarten
Regards
Francisco
(Portugal)
> bcd=May5509AvgfooterNO115)
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the messa
ge
wjho...@aol.com
From: jhigg...@yahoo.com
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, 8 May 2009 2:43 pm
Subject: Re: Barbe de Lebarten
some sources of better quality20than others. M. Aurejac seems to be a
serious researcher (whether or not he's a "professional genealogist"),
and you should give him the courtesy of at least asking him for his
sources before disparaging his work in a public forum.
Google Books is in effect a library, and like all libraries it's not
omniscient. If the information in question is sufficiently important
to you and you can't find it in one library, you don't just assume
that's it's wrong - you go looking in other libraries. Of course, the
library analogy may be lost on you, since you've previously expressed
a disdain for such institutions. :-)
Leo cites the old ES (Isenburg version) for Oda de Verdun and her
parentage. I don't have access to that version, but the newer ESNF
(Schwennicke version) in vol. 1.2 shows the same information that Leo
has. (Of course, ESNF is not on Google Books, so it's a source you'd
never check out anyway.) But ESNF's failure to mention Barbe de
Lebarten does not mean that the Aurejac database is wrong, since ESNF
is notoriously weak when it moves beyond its German base.>>
--------------------------------------------------
I did not "disparage" his work as you say.
What I pointed out, was that it has no sources and therefore should not
be used except as a point from which to try to find the source.
When you say that ES is weak beyond its German base, do you not realize
that we are speaking of German lines here?
Where do you think
Ringelheim is? Who exactly do you think the father of "Rotrude of
Germany" is supposed to be if not Lothair the Emperor ?
So apparently you jumped in, without even looking at the source I cited.
Why don't you look
Will Johnson
wjho...@aol.com
From: jhigg...@yahoo.com
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, 8 May 2009 2:53 pm
Subject: Re: Barbe de Lebarten
--------------------------------------------
It's laughable to claim I don't know how to fish.
The issue in this case, isn't not knowing how to fish.
It's that a person has said, I have fish here! And when you go look,
they are hiding the fish, and you have to negotiate a treaty of fishing
first, before they will give you the fish.
It's one thing to ask a person to do one extra step to use Google
Books. It's quite another to suggest that we have to engage in
personal emails in French, just to get the *name* of the source in
question in the first place and *then* try to find it, and translate it.
The issues are not black and white, they are grey. The bar is here,
raising it to there, isn't acceptable to me, and I can certainly say
that it isn't. That's my prerogative.
For now I'm going to mark the entire Lebarten family as "fantasy",
based on the red flag, that there are no German books which mention the
family in this time period, there are no French books which do so
either, and the only support comes from unsourced online trees. It
would be interesting to see whether there is any support for this
"Rotrude" at all, and that she married to anyone, or even survived
childhood.
Will Johnson
wjho...@aol.com
citing
1. [S00160] Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977 ,
Rösch, Siegfried
2. [S00301] ~Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg,
Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.), Reference: II 188B
and showing only one husband for Rotrude
and his name wasn't Lebarten!
So there.
Next case.
Will "dismissive snot" Johnson
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Wikipedia is good to start any search. Why?
Because once you get the article you can jump to the same article in
other languages and easily find exactly what to look for in english,
french, german, ...etc.
Then a google search between commas usually get quick results. After
some time fishing you already know what to expect of a reasonable
number of databases and you know wich have sources, always, most of
the times, sometimes or never.
Now, back to basics.
Wikipedia page on Gothelon I de Lotharingie - wich you claim you have
seen - says:
«Une épouse, dont l'histoire n'a pas transmis le nom (on cite Barbe de
Lebarten, sans que cela soit assuré), lui donna pour enfants :»
This page's sources with links are:
a) euweb.cz
b) genealogie-mittelalter
Once you claim you know how to fish you certainly know how to evaluate
these secondary sources and you know that they did not copied each
other.
Once Wikipedia states that the lady is unknown by history, even if
cited without basis, and she is not found in euweb.cz and mittelalter
one can safely conclude that there are no sources for this marriage.
If you would want more corroboration, you could check a few choosen
databases found in some google searches.
Just for the record, you did nothing of the sort. You have opened a
topic, asking a question that you could easily find that has no
possible answer.
Then you blame M. Aurejac because he does not fill your criteria. And
insist with the stupidest of the questions: could it be in
Genealogics?
Now, starting with your own link to ROGLO:
Barbe - only source is Aurejac.
Gozelon (the husband) - Aurejac and _l'Art de vérifier les dates_;
first conclusion: the book does not include Barbe.
Godefroi (the son) - ES and 2 more (not Aurejac); conclusion: ES and 2
more do not include Barbe.
Ode (the daughter) - source: _Les nobles aïeux de trois seigneurs
rouergats du XVIIe siècle_, cited by F-L Jacquier; conclusion:
Vasseur, the author, does not include Barbe.
Otton III and Lukharde (the parents) - unsourced.
If Barbe is not found in ES nor in any other possible place, why
should she be in Genealogics?
Maybe you know how to fish but frankly I doubt it, ... out of the
english language I mean.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
PS - I would not bother to write this if I did not thought that part
of it could be found useful for third parties, mainly lurkers.
F.
On 8 Maio, 23:10, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Wikipedia is created by anyone, with or without evidence.
> It's not a reliable source unless it cites its evidence.
> You should know that I would have already consulted that.
> But it doesn't move us forward at all.
> There are dozens of online databases with King Arthur as well.
> That doesn't mean that they are based on anything except the fantasy of
> one person at one time, and then copied over and over without any
> evidence, even that such a person existed at all.
>
> Will Johnson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Tavares de Almeida
>
> <francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com>
> To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
jhigg...@yahoo.com
You might want to be careful about accepting citations at their face
value, as Leo appears to have made a mistake in this case. Table 188B
in vol. 2 of Schwennicke's ESNF is for a different family altogether -
not connected (at least readily) to Rotrude. Rotrude does appear,
with the relationships Leo indicates, elsewhere in Schwennicke (and
presumably also in Isenburg's ES). Finding these other references in
Schwennicke will be a good exercise for you, to expand your horizons a
bit.
Labeling a line as "unproven" or "unsupported" is one thing, labeling
it as "fantasy" is quite another and IMO requires a certain level of
proof in itself.
I think Francisco hit the nail on the head: "Maybe you know how to
fish but frankly I doubt it...out of the English language I mean".
Leo
"Barbe de Lebarten" and her entire lineage with phoney names as shown in
the
Roglo and Aurejac databases are fictitious. This ancestry (including a
false
connection to the Carolingian family that was still being faintly echoed by
Erich Brandenburg in the 20th century) were invented much later to flatter
the counts of Nassau - the fabricated "Lebarten" line of rulers in
Laurenburg was carried back to a first "count" who had come to Germany with
Julius Caesar.
In fact the counts of Laurenburg can only be traced back to the 11th
century, as set out by Ludwig Conrady in 'Die Geschichte des Hauses Nassau:
Von den �ltesten Zeiten bis zu den ersten Tr�gern des Namens Nassau',
_Annalen des Vereins f�r nassauische Altertumskunde und
Geschichtsforschung_
26 (1894) 1-130 & table 132-133.
It makes no sense to post such trash to a newsgroup asking for help with it
and then later assert that it is somehow the obligation of others there to
prove it to him.
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> "Barbe de Lebarten" and her entire lineage with phoney names as shown in
> the
> Roglo and Aurejac databases are fictitious. This ancestry (including a
> false
> connection to the Carolingian family that was still being faintly echoed by
> Erich Brandenburg in the 20th century) were invented much later to flatter
> the counts of Nassau - the fabricated "Lebarten" line of rulers in
> Laurenburg was carried back to a first "count" who had come to Germany with
> Julius Caesar.
>
> In fact the counts of Laurenburg can only be traced back to the 11th
> century, as set out by Ludwig Conrady in 'Die Geschichte des Hauses Nassau:
> _Annalen des Vereins für nassauische Altertumskunde und
> Geschichtsforschung_
> 26 (1894) 1-130 & table 132-133.
>
> It makes no sense to post such trash to a newsgroup asking for help with it
> and then later assert that it is somehow the obligation of others there to
> prove it to him.
Leo:
Does the source that you cite directly address and debunk the
fictitious connection of the Nassau family to the supposed Lebarten
line? If so this would be the support that Will has been lacking for
his unsupported assertion that the line is fictitious. If not, do you
know of a source that does debunk this line?
Will may want toGoogle for "Lebarten Laurenburg". There's a German
source there that might support his case in this matter.
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
??????????
Yes I know, these foreign names are just so difficult..., but at least
try to keep in the same gender.
http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en;i=92084
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00141433&tree=LEO
And please do not twist. The question is not if Gozelon was married to
Barbe de Lebarten and parents of Oda de Verdun; the question is why
you should ask such a (#%$=!) question.
And also what right you have to criticise and blame people that have
databases on-line and, in both cases, never pretend that they are
references (please see ROGLO's advice at the bottom of all pages).
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
wjho...@aol.com
All your useless mumbling does nothing at all to find any useful source
for any Lebarten in this place and time.
Wikipedia is *not* a useful source, unless it cites it's specific
citations. In this case it does not cite anything useful, except
circular logic.
That there might be some secondary source citing this based on no
original citation, again does nothing to further the situation.
So a bunch of useless wheel-spinning.
Now perhaps we can see what really exists. Look at the sources for
Rotrude, and *you tell me* if you can find any second marriage. I
suspect the entire thing is based on little to nothing.
Will
wjho...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Barbe de Lebarten
------------------
0A
Blah blah blah.
Something useful followed by more personal attacks from the Queen
herself. Please leave your snotty rag at home.
I presented a quite direct question, and throwing dung across the room
only shows how little you have to offer on it.
Next batter !!
Will
wjhonson
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 Maio, 23:34, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00304044&tree=LEO
>
> > citing
> > 1. [S00160] Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977 ,
> > Rösch, Siegfried
> > 2. [S00301] ~Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg,
> > Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.), Reference: II 188B
>
> > and showing only one husband for Rotrude
> > and his name wasn't Lebarten!
>
> > So there.
> > Next case.
>
> > Will "dismissive snot" Johnson
>
> ??????????
> Yes I know, these foreign names are just so difficult..., but at least
>
> And please do not twist. The question is not if Gozelon was married to
> Barbe de Lebarten and parents of Oda de Verdun; the question is why
> you should ask such a (#%$=!) question.
> And also what right you have to criticise and blame people that have
> databases on-line and, in both cases, never pretend that they are
> references (please see ROGLO's advice at the bottom of all pages).
>
> Regards,
> Francisco
> (Portugal)
---------------
I have a right to criticize anyone I wish to.
You, President Obama, Jesus Christ and Godzilla as well.
The fact that you don't *like* my question, doesn't phase me one
little tiny bit. The fact that you treat the situation with complete
contempt is very telling of the way you do genealogy. Take everything
on faith unless you can disprove it.
That is the opposite approach I use. I want actual evidence, before I
will *belief* something. Perhaps you would want to start a new
religion ?
Will Johnson
wjhonson
> the
> Roglo and Aurejac databases are fictitious. This ancestry (including a
> false
> connection to the Carolingian family that was still being faintly echoed by
> Erich Brandenburg in the 20th century) were invented much later to flatter
> the counts of Nassau - the fabricated "Lebarten" line of rulers in
> Laurenburg was carried back to a first "count" who had come to Germany with
> Julius Caesar.
>
> In fact the counts of Laurenburg can only be traced back to the 11th
> century, as set out by Ludwig Conrady in 'Die Geschichte des Hauses Nassau:
> _Annalen des Vereins für nassauische Altertumskunde und
> Geschichtsforschung_
> 26 (1894) 1-130 & table 132-133.
>
> It makes no sense to post such trash to a newsgroup asking for help with it
> and then later assert that it is somehow the obligation of others there to
> prove it to him.
------------
Thank you Leo for your quite useful quote.
This is exactly the thing for which I was looking.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
> the
> Roglo and Aurejac databases are fictitious. This ancestry (including a
> false
> connection to the Carolingian family that was still being faintly echoed by
> Erich Brandenburg in the 20th century) were invented much later to flatter
> the counts of Nassau - the fabricated "Lebarten" line of rulers in
> Laurenburg was carried back to a first "count" who had come to Germany with
> Julius Caesar.
>
> In fact the counts of Laurenburg can only be traced back to the 11th
> century, as set out by Ludwig Conrady in 'Die Geschichte des Hauses Nassau:
> _Annalen des Vereins für nassauische Altertumskunde und
> Geschichtsforschung_
> 26 (1894) 1-130 & table 132-133.
>
> It makes no sense to post such trash to a newsgroup asking for help with it
> and then later assert that it is somehow the obligation of others there to
> prove it to him.>>
----------
I have now added a reference to the article on Gozelo here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothelo_I,_Duke_of_Lorraine
citing the work Leo mentioned, with his message here as the secondary
citation.
Will Johnson
Renia
> On May 8, 4:30 pm, "Leo" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
>> "Barbe de Lebarten" and her entire lineage with phoney names as shown in
>> the
>> Roglo and Aurejac databases are fictitious. This ancestry (including a
>> false
>> connection to the Carolingian family that was still being faintly echoed by
>> Erich Brandenburg in the 20th century) were invented much later to flatter
>> the counts of Nassau - the fabricated "Lebarten" line of rulers in
>> Laurenburg was carried back to a first "count" who had come to Germany with
>> Julius Caesar.
>>
>> In fact the counts of Laurenburg can only be traced back to the 11th
>> century, as set out by Ludwig Conrady in 'Die Geschichte des Hauses Nassau:
>> _Annalen des Vereins f�r nassauische Altertumskunde und
>> Geschichtsforschung_
>> 26 (1894) 1-130 & table 132-133.
>>
>> It makes no sense to post such trash to a newsgroup asking for help with it
>> and then later assert that it is somehow the obligation of others there to
>> prove it to him.
>
> ------------
>
> Thank you Leo for your quite useful quote.
> This is exactly the thing for which I was looking.
Couldn't find your own fish, eh?
wjho...@aol.com
From: Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, 8 May 2009 5:44 pm
Subject: Re: Barbe de Lebarten
wjhonson wrote:
> On May 8, 4:30 pm, "Leo" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
>> "Barbe de Lebarten" and her entire lineage with phoney names as
shown in
>> the
>> Roglo and Aurejac databases are fictitious. This ancestry
(including a
>> false
>> connection to the Carolingian family that was still being faintly
echoed by
>> Erich Brandenburg in the 20th century) were invented much later to
flatter
>> the counts of Nassau - the fabricated "Lebarten" line of rulers in
>> Laurenburg was carried back to a first "count" who had come to
Germany with
>> Julius Caesar.
>>
>> In fact the counts of Laurenburg can only be traced back to the 11th
>> century, as set out by Ludwig Conrady in 'Die Geschichte des Hauses
Nassau:
>> Von den ältesten Zeiten bis zu den ersten Trägern des Namens
Nassau',
>> _Annalen des Vereins für nassauische Altertumskunde und
>> Geschichtsforschung_
>> 26 (1894) 1-130 & table 132-133.
>>
>> It makes no sense to post such trash to a newsgroup asking for help
with it
>> and then later assert that it is somehow the obligation of others
there to
>> prove it to him.
>
> ------------
>
> Thank you Leo for your quite useful quote.
> This is exactly the thing for which I was looking.
Couldn't find your own fish, eh?
--------------------------------
I brought the potato salad *and* the tent.
What did you bring, Miss
Will
Renia
Les condiments