Databases updated
Diane MacKenzie
it as of recently. It contains approx. 6700 names to
include Scottish surnames, and relationships to medieval
royalty of both Scottish & English, etc. Most of the
source of the royalty lines was obtained from
"http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/" by Brian
Tompsett who compiled all the info. from several books, and
contains about 30,000 royality lines. As for my line, I
have from the present back to approx. ~660 A.D. My direct
descendents are William the Conquerer, Robert the Bruce,
Henry II (England), and so forth. If you find you may have
a link with your fairly recent ancestors, I would love to
share information with you. You may view my web site at the
tag line below.
--
Diane MacKenzie
"mailto:dianema...@home.com"
URL "http://members.home.net/dianemackenzie/index.htm"
Researching MACKENZIE, MACLENNAN, MACLEOD, et al
and Aurillo and Facciolo.
D. Spencer Hines
If William The Conqueror, Robert The Bruce and Henry II are your direct
descendants, you do indeed have a most interesting Genealogy. Please
show us how William the Conqueror descends from you.
Also, how does a direct descendant differ from an indirect descendant?
Cheers,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit." Publius Virgilius Maro
(Virgil) [70-19 B.C.] [Aeneid I, 203] Aeneas, seeking to comfort his
men as they contemplate an arduous journey to Italy, reassures them
that, "Someday, perhaps, it will be pleasant to remember all this."
Diane MacKenzie <dianema...@home.com> wrote in message
news:381D7B4C...@home.com...
Diane MacKenzie
my 26th g-grandfather and Robert the Bruce is my 21st g-grandfather. when
I meant "direct" I meant as in grandparent or ancestor line, and not as in
cousins that are for example 20th cousins, 10 times removed... I have the
36 generations listed on at my web site if you would like to view it.
--
Diane MacKenzie
"mailto:dianema...@home.com"
URL "http://members.home.net/dianemackenzie/index.htm"
Researching MACKENZIE, MACLENNAN, MACLEOD, et al
and Aurillo and Facciolo.
D. Spencer Hines
were your direct descendants.
Vide infra.
You've not shown us how that works.
Hint #1:
How does an 11th Century person descend from a 20th Century person?
Hint #2
There is no such thing as an "indirect descendant". All descendants are
direct. Some may be illegitimate, or only from one parent in a given
step, not both, of course.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit." Publius Virgilius Maro
(Virgil) [70-19 B.C.] [Aeneid I, 203] Aeneas, seeking to comfort his
men as they contemplate an arduous journey to Italy, reassures them
that, "Someday, perhaps, it will be pleasant to remember all this."
Diane MacKenzie <dianema...@home.com> wrote in message
news:381DA9E7...@home.com...
Diane MacKenzie
that I haven't viewed these newsgroups in a while. Are you
always this cynical? I gather you must be the "bully" of
the groups, since you don't post your email address for
personal messages, which this sort of thing should be. I
admit my error about descendents vs. ancestors. Things
like happen when you get tired, especially us "third shift
night workers". If you have any information to add or
corrections in a constructive way, I would appreciate
hearing from you.
D. Spencer Hines
Surprising.
"Indirect descendants?" That one is still hanging.
Truth is a complex variable and some folks are simplex variables ---
hence there is an inherent mismatch.
Construction is in the eye of the beholder.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Diane MacKenzie <dianema...@home.com> wrote in message
news:381DB703...@home.com...
Michael Burley
Spencer is just having a little fun with you. This sort of thing doesn't always
play well on USENET.
Mike in Oregon
Diane MacKenzie wrote:
>
> I've been so busy working on my tree for the past few years,
> that I haven't viewed these newsgroups in a while. Are you
> always this cynical? I gather you must be the "bully" of
> the groups, since you don't post your email address for
> personal messages, which this sort of thing should be.
<SNIP>
D. Spencer Hines
No, not in the least.
I'm not trying to have "fun" at anyone's expense.
_Au Contraire_, Erroneous Genealogy and Genealogical Terminology posted
here tend to confuse some folks and pollute databases.
I just think we should get things right and that obvious errors and
terminological misconceptions should be corrected as soon as possible.
It has nothing to do with "fun" --- in fact it is not "fun" in any way.
I cannot tell what someone "meant to say" --- I must work with what they
actually say.
Please do not put an evil or cynical interpretation on my motivations,
which I assure you is not there at all.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Michael Burley <mbu...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:381DDB92...@teleport.com...
Robert Maxwell
post in this newsgroup before, we all make mistakes and especially when
we're tired.
Robert Maxwell, Tacoma, WA. de...@ix.netcom.com
Richard B. Stenzel
the error is simply taking things the wrong way.
Let us make haste to judge one another friends.
R. B. Stenzel U.S.A.
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:7vknaf$4go$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> Vide infra.
>
> No, not in the least.
>
> I'm not trying to have "fun" at anyone's expense.
>
> _Au Contraire_, Erroneous Genealogy and Genealogical Terminology posted
> here tend to confuse some folks and pollute databases.
>
> I just think we should get things right and that obvious errors and
> terminological misconceptions should be corrected as soon as possible.
>
> It has nothing to do with "fun" --- in fact it is not "fun" in any way.
> I cannot tell what someone "meant to say" --- I must work with what they
> actually say.
>
> Please do not put an evil or cynical interpretation on my motivations,
> which I assure you is not there at all.
> --
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> "There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
> directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
> end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
> view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
> the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
> already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
> villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
> York, p. 109.
>
D. Spencer Hines
Absolutely!
Best Wishes and Aloha,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Richard B. Stenzel <rb...@iwc.net> wrote in message
news:X9qT3.18222$23.9...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com...
Frank Martin
of births & deaths records.
No doubt this is American, but perhaps they know something of the English
past.
Diane MacKenzie <dianema...@home.com> wrote in message
news:381D7B4C...@home.com...
> I'm constantly working on my family tree, and I have updated
> it as of recently. It contains approx. 6700 names to
> include Scottish surnames, and relationships to medieval
> royalty of both Scottish & English, etc. Most of the
> source of the royalty lines was obtained from
> "http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/" by Brian
> Tompsett who compiled all the info. from several books, and
> contains about 30,000 royality lines. As for my line, I
> have from the present back to approx. ~660 A.D. My direct
> descendents are William the Conquerer, Robert the Bruce,
> Henry II (England), and so forth. If you find you may have
> a link with your fairly recent ancestors, I would love to
> share information with you. You may view my web site at the
> tag line below.
Leslie C. Knowles
Causa latet; vis est notisima. Do you have any food for thought that
would satisfy our hunger?
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
>
> Vide infra pro phrenetico.
>
> Surprising.
>
> "Indirect descendants?" That one is still hanging.
>
> Truth is a complex variable and some folks are simplex variables ---
> hence there is an inherent mismatch.
>
> Construction is in the eye of the beholder.
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> "There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
> directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
> end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
> view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
> the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
> already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
> villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
> York, p. 109.
>
> Diane MacKenzie <dianema...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:381DB703...@home.com...
> | I've been so busy working on my tree for the past few years,
> | that I haven't viewed these newsgroups in a while. Are you
> | always this cynical? I gather you must be the "bully" of
> | the groups, since you don't post your email address for
> | personal messages, which this sort of thing should be. I
> | admit my error about descendents vs. ancestors. Things
> | like happen when you get tired, especially us "third shift
> | night workers". If you have any information to add or
> | corrections in a constructive way, I would appreciate
> | hearing from you.
> |
Steven Akins
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message
<7vknaf$4go$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Vide infra.
>
>No, not in the least.
>
>I'm not trying to have "fun" at anyone's expense.
Well, perhaps your train of thought does not "set" well with some people.
Henry F. Brownlee
<de...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Spencer must be some troll popping in to cause trouble, I haven't seen him
>post in this newsgroup before, we all make mistakes and especially when
>we're tired.
>
>Robert Maxwell, Tacoma, WA. de...@ix.netcom.com
>
Oh, he has posted before! But I have never seen a constructive post by
His Majesty. Boola Boola, Eli!
Henry F. Brownlee
In South Louisiana Hunting Forebears
burford
You whiners just don't seem to get it. Spencer makes you all better at
being PRECISE, like it or not, and, after all, that's what you all are here
for. Isn't it?
Rosie
----------
> From: Henry F. Brownlee <hfbro...@att.net>
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Databases Updated
> Date: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 10:32 AM
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you kindly, Rosie.
Some of them "just want it to happen" --- without any real effort.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
burford <bur...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:199911021922...@pantano.theriver.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Folks should edit posts critically and carefully before they send them.
They should also READ their own posts AFTER they send them and see if
they make sense.
That is certainly not asking too much.
"I was tired," is not a good excuse.
How many folks here want to pollute your genealogical database with bad
dope? Is it O.K. then if the person who fed it to you later pleads,
"Well, I was tired."
Adults KNOW when they are tired and don't do important things like
serious Genealogy or Driving A Car when they are tired.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Mikey <an15...@anon.penet.fi> wrote in message
news:89hu1s499vb2llm28...@4ax.com...
| No Rosie, I think they get that part, I think what they are saying is
| that the WAY that Spencer is doing it is not helpfull and endearing
| him to them for some of the further stuff he could probably impart!
|
|
| x-no-archive:no
Eve McLaughlin
> Are you
>always this cynical? I gather you must be the "bully" of
>the groups, since you don't post your email address for
>personal messages, which this sort of thing should be. I
>admit my error about descendents vs. ancestors.
acquaintance with Latin, was very gently pointed out, and not
acknowledged until it was spelled out in words of one syllable. Come off
it - if you make such funny statements, you much expect people to laugh
a little.
--
Eve McLaughlin
Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Eve McLaughlin
>Henry II King of England is my 24th g-grandfather, William the Conquerer is
>my 26th g-grandfather
as Henry was William's great grandson, not his grandson, that poses an
interesting question of how the generations have become telescoped. Not
to mention this little confusion about the meaning of 'descendant' as
opposed to 'antecessor', which seems to have escaped Diana's attention.
To which, I think, Spencer Hines was trying to draw attention.
>> Vide infra.
>>
>> If William The Conqueror, Robert The Bruce and Henry II are your direct
>> descendants,
Eve McLaughlin
>My direct
>descendents are William the Conquerer, Robert the Bruce,
>Henry II (England), and so forth.
millennium
Eve McLaughlin
>Spencer must be some troll popping in to cause trouble, I haven't seen him
>post in this newsgroup before, we all make mistakes and especially when
>we're tired.
>
intellectual high ground by showing off a Latin quotation. Spencer was
right, Diana was wrong. Daft remarks warrant gentle ribbing, which was
all it was. And it does make one wonder about the claimed pedigree too.
even as 'ancestors'.
Todd A. Farmerie
cases five) different newsgroups. If you must continue, please trim the
Newsgroups: line to a single group.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Eve McLaughlin has it exactly right. She proves that there are some
really smart people here --- and perhaps some who can't walk and chew
gum at the same time. [N.B. No, I'm not talking about anyone in this
instant case.]
Here is my initial post, certainly neither cynical nor bullying:
-------------------------------------
If William The Conqueror, Robert The Bruce and Henry II are your direct
descendants, you do indeed have a most interesting Genealogy. Please
show us how William the Conqueror descends from you.
Also, how does a direct descendant differ from an indirect descendant?
Cheers,
--
D. Spencer Hines
------------------------------------
If the person to whom I addressed my "gently pointed out" query [and
Eve's characterisation is PRECISELY correct, as well as what I intended]
had answered and acknowledged that she had been mistaken on TWO matters
[let's not forget the other one about "direct descendants"] that would
have been the end of it.
But she did not. She answered with another post that indicated she
either did not understand what I was talking about [probably the case]
or was deliberately ignoring the substance of what I said. It was a
"velvet fog" --- non-responsive type answer. Here it is:
---------------------------------------
Henry II King of England is my 24th g-grandfather, William the Conquerer
[sic] is my 26th g-grandfather and Robert the Bruce is my 21st
g-grandfather. when I meant "direct" I meant as in grandparent or
ancestor line, and not as in cousins that are for example 20th cousins,
10 times removed... I have the 36 generations listed on at my web site
if you would like to view it.
--
Diane MacKenzie
---------------------------------------
I saw that she was obviously confused and might well confuse many
others, both here and in other venues.
So I was more direct and actually provided hints:
----------------------------------------------------------------
No, you said that William The Conqueror, Robert The Bruce and Henry II
were your direct descendants.
Vide infra.
You've not shown us how that works.
Hint #1:
How does an 11th Century person descend from a 20th Century person?
Hint #2
There is no such thing as an "indirect descendant". All descendants are
direct. Some may be illegitimate, or only from one parent in a given
step, not both, of course.
--
D. Spencer Hines
-------------------------------------------------------
As Gentle Readers will note I'm trying to make sure that her bum dope
does not pollute the databases. I bring her back to the two central
points, which she is either unaware of, or is trying to avoid
confronting.
She then replied with a quite hostile post, as follows:
----------------------------------------
I've been so busy working on my tree for the past few years,
that I haven't viewed these newsgroups in a while. Are you
always this cynical? I gather you must be the "bully" of
the groups, since you don't post your email address for
personal messages, which this sort of thing should be. I
admit my error about descendents [sic] vs. ancestors. Things
like happen [sic] when you get tired, especially us "third shift
night workers". If you have any information to add or
corrections in a constructive way, I would appreciate
hearing from you.
--
Diane MacKenzie
----------------------------------------
In conclusion, I am neither cynical nor a bully.
Parts of her post are simply illogical:
1. Public posts are answered with public posts, of course --- not
e-mails. It's a standard rule of good communications procedure. The
people to whom the errors were broadcast are the same folks who receive
the corrections. It would be quite ludicrous to do otherwise. Her post
was not a "private message" hence my initial query was not either.
2. My e-mail address is easily ascertainable by anyone who is even
marginally computer literate.
3. I did add "information and corrections in a constructive way." She
either did not understand them or tried to ignore them --- perhaps some
of both.
4. Of further note, all genealogical ancestors are "direct" --- there
are no "indirect" genealogical ancestors. So to speak of "direct
ancestors" or "direct descendants" is illiterate. One sometimes hears
the term "collateral descendants."
Finis.
Let's just do Good Genealogy here.
Me ke aloha pumehana,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Eve McLaughlin <e...@varneys.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wWTKTdCm...@varneys.demon.co.uk...
|
| > Are you
| >always this cynical? I gather you must be the "bully" of
| >the groups, since you don't post your email address for
| >personal messages, which this sort of thing should be. I
| >admit my error about descendents vs. ancestors.
| Your error, which is pretty extreme for someone claiming an
| acquaintance with Latin, was very gently pointed out, and not
| acknowledged until it was spelled out in words of one syllable. Come
| off it - if you make such funny statements, you much expect
| people to laugh a little.
Emmett and Angela
Diane MacKenzie wrote:
> I'm constantly working on my family tree, and I have updated
> it as of recently. It contains approx. 6700 names to
> include Scottish surnames, and relationships to medieval
> royalty of both Scottish & English, etc. Most of the
> source of the royalty lines was obtained from
> "http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/" by Brian
> Tompsett who compiled all the info. from several books, and
> contains about 30,000 royality lines. As for my line, I
> have from the present back to approx. ~660 A.D. My direct
> descendents are William the Conquerer, Robert the Bruce,
> Henry II (England), and so forth. If you find you may have
> a link with your fairly recent ancestors, I would love to
> share information with you. You may view my web site at the
> tag line below.
>
Richard B. Stenzel
SOME people who refuse to understand a kindnes being offered.
I applaud the effort, and regret they don't understand.
Regards,
Richard
Eve McLaughlin <e...@varneys.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j2sOrOCY...@varneys.demon.co.uk...
>
> >My direct
> >descendents are William the Conquerer, Robert the Bruce,
> >Henry II (England), and so forth.
> Well, congratulations on your great age, having passed your second
> millennium
R. Ben Madison
>Also, how does a direct descendant differ from an indirect descendant?
This one gets me too; I see the expression "direct descendant" all the time.
Is there a meaningful distinction between "direct descendant" and plain ol'
"descendant"?
R. Ben Madison
http://www.execpc.com/~talossa
Leo van de Pas
important that descent is. Also, in Australia at least, many people don't
know the difference between a step-brother and a half-brother. At least
genealogists should use the correct terms and advocate, like Spencer Hines
is trying, to use the correct terms.
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Leo van de Pas <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:004301bf25b3$55a1bd20$a4433bcb@leo...
D. Spencer Hines
No, not in my opinion.
<"Direct Descendant"> and <"Direct Ancestor"> are directly nonsensical,
i.e., gibberish --- in my opinion.
It seems to be used by people who are trying to hype an ascent or a
descent --- or just don't listen to what they say.
It reminds me of the story about the Little Old Lady/Gentleman from
Dubuque who didn't know what she thought until she heard what she had to
say.
How about <"Collateral Descendant">? There's a spicy meatball.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
R. Ben Madison <tal...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:7vodhr$9un$1...@uwm.edu...
D. Spencer Hines
| I'm constantly working on my family tree, and I have updated
| it as of recently. It contains approx. 6700 names to
| include Scottish surnames, and relationships to medieval
| royalty of both Scottish & English, etc. Most of the
| source of the royalty lines was obtained from
| "http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/" by Brian
| Tompsett who compiled all the info.
<snip>
Unfortunately, that is quite an error-ridden source --- not reliable for
serious researchers.
It is an experiment in computer science.
Brian Tompsett, who I am sure is a pleasant man, kind to his family and
dogs, is not really interested in Genealogy or History. He is a
computer scientist.
Brian works from an entirely different agenda and sings from a different
song sheet or hymnal, if you prefer religious singing. Brian is
interested in how people interact with his database.
We are in a real sense Brian Tompsett's laboratory rats, when we
interact with that site.
So, it is not acceptable to cite it in any serious Genealogical or
Historical work. I also doubt that Brian Tompsett enters all the data
himself. I suspect he uses indentured servants, i.e., graduate
students, who often revolt at the scut work [as they see it] of data
entry that he assigns them. I've found some quite humorous entries
salted in amongst the allegedly 'real stuff'.
Of course, I may be entirely wrong, he may be using chimpanzees or
gibbons chained to keyboards and rewarded from time to time with a
handful of granola or an exciting sexual escapade.
In summary, it's hard to tell who, or what, is doing the data entry.
The data enterers, whatever species they may be, are also not very
literate in ordinary English, titles, styles of address, foreign
languages, spelling, syntax, grammar, dates, names, places and History.
Perhaps you don't care about that sort of stuff.
Otherwise they are reasonably and marginally adequate --- species
specific, of course.
The Hull site is sometimes useful as a finding aid however. Then it's
on to _The Complete Peerage_ ES or another reliable source for the
Genealogy and the History.
The further away one gets from the British data the worse the Hull site
gets. That is not to say that the British data is reliable --- so
please don't take it that way.
Your Mileage May Vary.
Sincerely,
D. Spencer Hines
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
Frank Martin
1 set of parents
2 sets of grandparents
4 sets of GreatGrandparents
8 sets of GGGrandparents
16 sets of GGGGrandparents
32 sets of GGGGGrandparents
etc
so God knows what else!
Larry Coats
--------------4233AB6EFC1B7722E7FF574B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Your points are well taken, and I doubt that anyone on the list will
disagree with them. The issue at hand is that anyone can be constructively
critical and help clear away the errors without "deconstructing" the
individual, who, in good faith, has brought information into the "arena" to
be tested/validated/discussed.
If I don't misjudge the general tenor or tone of this on-going debate, I
would say that all anyone is asking for is just for everyone to shift the
focus towards constructive criticism that steers away from tones that can
be perceived as personal assaults.
The more this continues, the more likely it is that "we" will drive away
individuals, who may have valuable points/information, but who dislike the
overall tone and won't contribute for fear of being condemned out of hand
for momentary slips.
You are, of course, free to do as you choose and speak as you please.
However, it wouldn't hurt any of us to keep in mind that perceptions and
this on-going bickering do not really have much to do with what this list
ought to be about. I appreciate the fact that you want(as do we
all)accuracy and precision. But I, for one, want to enlarge the discussion
group, keep the criticism constructive, and encourge more commentary on
substantive matters. I think these are reasonable expectations, and I
would hope that you take this in a "constructive" spirit.
Sincerely, and best regards,
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
> Some folks are entirely too thin-skinned and touchy-feely.
>
> Folks should edit posts critically and carefully before they send them.
>
> They should also READ their own posts AFTER they send them and see if
> they make sense.
>
> That is certainly not asking too much.
>
> "I was tired," is not a good excuse.
>
> How many folks here want to pollute your genealogical database with bad
> dope? Is it O.K. then if the person who fed it to you later pleads,
> "Well, I was tired."
>
> Adults KNOW when they are tired and don't do important things like
> serious Genealogy or Driving A Car when they are tired.
>
> Quod Erat Demonstrandum
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> "There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
> directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
> end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
> view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
> the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
> already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
> villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
> York, p. 109.
>
> Mikey <an15...@anon.penet.fi> wrote in message
> news:89hu1s499vb2llm28...@4ax.com...
>
> | No Rosie, I think they get that part, I think what they are saying is
> | that the WAY that Spencer is doing it is not helpfull and endearing
> | him to them for some of the further stuff he could probably impart!
> |
> |
> | x-no-archive:no
> |
> | On 2 Nov 1999 10:04:01 -0800, bur...@theriver.com (burford) wrote:
> |
> | >
> | >You whiners just don't seem to get it. Spencer makes you all better
> at
> | >being PRECISE, like it or not, and, after all, that's what you all
> are here
> | >for. Isn't it?
> | >
> | >Rosie
--
Larry D. Hamilton Coats
P.O. Box 823
Aspermont, TX 79502
--------------4233AB6EFC1B7722E7FF574B
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="larcoa.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Larry Coats
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="larcoa.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Coats;Larry D. Hamilton
tel;home:P.O. Box 823, Aspermont, TX 79502
tel;work:Aspermont ISD
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:lar...@aspermont.esc14.net
fn:Larry D. Hamilton Coats
end:vcard
--------------4233AB6EFC1B7722E7FF574B--
Séimí mac Liam
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message
>How about <"Collateral Descendant">? There's a spicy meatball.
>--
>
>D. Spencer Hines
It's "Thatsa one spicy meataball."
Brian Tompsett
myself!
It's normally not a good idea to repond to blatent trolls, and I'm sure
I'll regret this, but......
In article <7vog4p$cvc$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
D. Spencer Hines trolled in an excessively large number of groups:
>
>Unfortunately, that is quite an error-ridden source --- not reliable for
>serious researchers.
>
>It is an experiment in computer science.
>
>Brian Tompsett, who I am sure is a pleasant man, kind to his family and
>dogs, is not really interested in Genealogy or History. He is a
>computer scientist.
>
>Brian works from an entirely different agenda and sings from a different
>song sheet or hymnal, if you prefer religious singing. Brian is
>interested in how people interact with his database.
>
>We are in a real sense Brian Tompsett's laboratory rats, when we
>interact with that site.
This is like the genealogical rumours that researchers so detest.
The fact that I work *slowly* does not give me the perculiar characteristics
that you fantasise!
Yes I *do* have a life.
I am interested in correcting the errors. I am interested in genealogy,
but it is a hobby and not a profession. I am always happy to defer to the
professionals in these matters.
I *am* a professional computer scientist. It is nice to link ones hobbies
with ones professional work. This database is a result of that.
My main interest was in the presentation of gedcom originated data.
>So, it is not acceptable to cite it in any serious Genealogical or
>Historical work. I also doubt that Brian Tompsett enters all the data
>himself. I suspect he uses indentured servants, i.e., graduate
>students, who often revolt at the scut work [as they see it] of data
>entry that he assigns them. I've found some quite humorous entries
>salted in amongst the allegedly 'real stuff'.
>
>Of course, I may be entirely wrong, he may be using chimpanzees or
>gibbons chained to keyboards and rewarded from time to time with a
>handful of granola or an exciting sexual escapade.
>
>In summary, it's hard to tell who, or what, is doing the data entry.
>
>The data enterers, whatever species they may be, are also not very
>literate in ordinary English, titles, styles of address, foreign
>languages, spelling, syntax, grammar, dates, names, places and History.
>
>Perhaps you don't care about that sort of stuff.
Every piece of data is entered by my own fair hands personally!
I am responsible for it all. I blame no one else.
Yes. I do not unify names, and transcribe the style used in sources.
The data sources are books listed in the bibliography. None of it is
made up, which seems to be what you imply. Data sources, for the last
few years of entries have been shown on most records. Old records not
re-attributed (unfortunately).
>Otherwise they are reasonably and marginally adequate --- species
>specific, of course.
>
>The Hull site is sometimes useful as a finding aid however. Then it's
>on to _The Complete Peerage_ ES or another reliable source for the
>Genealogy and the History.
Most of it comes from CP (inlc vol.XIV) and ES! (Freytag & Schwennicke)
Useful finding aid. Yes I agree. I'd almost never recommend just lifting
data from web sites and adding them to ones genealogy!
>The further away one gets from the British data the worse the Hull site
>gets. That is not to say that the British data is reliable --- so
>please don't take it that way.
Yes, I agree. Most of my time has been working on UK peerages before the
House of Lords go... (damn too late there!)
(well at least my name was spelt right!)
Brian Tompsett
D. Spencer Hines
separate pukas.
Arrivederci.
Arma Virumque Cano.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Séimí mac Liam <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:yXYT3.1473$As1.1...@typhoon.aracnet.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Experienced USENET hands will realise that as the first feeble
counter-charge of a scoundrel who has no case --- only a very weak hand.
He then goes on to confirm the lion's share of what I have written.
Brian Tompsett should put up a bold disclaimer on the first page of his
site that:
1. He does work slowly because, "I have a life."
2. He is neither a Genealogist nor a Historian and has little knowledge
of either field.
3. He is experimenting on us with his hobby. "I am interested in
correcting the errors. I am interested in genealogy, but it is a hobby
and not a profession." [N.B. Verbatim. Vide infra.]
4. He is a computer scientist who is playing at Genealogy and History
and his main interest is in the presentation of GEDCOMs. The accuracy,
probity, academic integrity and scholarship demonstrated in said GEDCOMs
is of distinctly secondary interest.
5. "Yes. I do not unify names, and transcribe the style used in
sources." Whatever that gibberish means.
6. He enters the data from books but he does not beat the sources
against each other so that, for example he may have the same individual
entered twice as A and B, the legitimate and illegitimate son of King X.
But in both cases A and B will have the same name, say Richard. Hence
my chimpanzee/gibbon data entry analogy. BT simply enters the data as
he reads it. There is no critical Genealogical and Historical critical
intelligence at the helm of his ship.
7. He should get himself a good editor, someone of stature and
integrity, and put the name and credentials on that same first page.
I've corrected a few of his spelling errors below. They proliferate
like little bunrabs when the boy and girl lab rabbits are turned loose
in the courtyard of the computer science building on weekends to frolic
and make love.
Vide infra.
Me ke aloha pumehana,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Brian Tompsett <b...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:94164545...@muck.dcs.ed.ac.uk...
| D. Spencer Hines attepted [SIC] to speak for me, but I'd rather speak
for
| myself!
I made no attempt to speak for Mr. Tompsett. He is roundly confused.
| It's normally not a good idea to repond to blatent [SIC] trolls, and
I'm sure
| I'll regret this, but......
|
| In article <7vog4p$cvc$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
| D. Spencer Hines trolled in an excessively large number of groups:
No, I posted just to four, important, relevant, groups. Check the
origination of this thread. Brian Tompsett is not too swift on factual
analysis. We see that in his database.
| >
| >Unfortunately, that is quite an error-ridden source --- not reliable
for
| >serious researchers.
| >
| >It is an experiment in computer science.
| >
| >Brian Tompsett, who I am sure is a pleasant man, kind to his family
and
| >dogs, is not really interested in Genealogy or History. He is a
| >computer scientist.
| >
| >Brian works from an entirely different agenda and sings from a
different
| >song sheet or hymnal, if you prefer religious singing. Brian is
| >interested in how people interact with his database.
| >
| >We are in a real sense Brian Tompsett's laboratory rats, when we
| >interact with that site.
He doesn't take issue with any of my points, supra. Please note his
classic attempt at a non-substantive, evasive dodge [buck and wing] in
the paragraph infra, which fails miserably.
| This is like the genealogical rumours that researchers so detest.
| The fact that I work *slowly* does not give me the perculiar [SIC]
characteristics
| that you fantasise!
|
| Yes I *do* have a life.
|
| I am interested in correcting the errors. I am interested in
genealogy,
| but it is a hobby and not a profession. I am always happy to defer to
the
| professionals in these matters.
"I am interested..." but what does he DO about it? Very little. Mostly
he washes his hands.
| I *am* a professional computer scientist. It is nice to link ones
hobbies
| with ones professional work. This database is a result of that.
"It is nice to link..." Hmmmmm. So noted above.
| My main interest was in the presentation of gedcom originated data.
His main interest is in experimenting on US, the labrats, and how we use
the database. Do we notice the errors? Do we make queries? Whose
records are accessed most frequently? Where does he get the most
"hits"? That sort of thing.
| >So, it is not acceptable to cite it in any serious Genealogical or
| >Historical work. I also doubt that Brian Tompsett enters all the
data
| >himself. I suspect he uses indentured servants, i.e., graduate
| >students, who often revolt at the scut work [as they see it] of data
| >entry that he assigns them. I've found some quite humorous entries
| >salted in amongst the allegedly 'real stuff'.
| >
| >Of course, I may be entirely wrong, he may be using chimpanzees or
| >gibbons chained to keyboards and rewarded from time to time with a
| >handful of granola or an exciting sexual escapade.
| >
| >In summary, it's hard to tell who, or what, is doing the data entry.
| >
| >The data enterers, whatever species they may be, are also not very
| >literate in ordinary English, titles, styles of address, foreign
| >languages, spelling, syntax, grammar, dates, names, places and
History.
| >
| >Perhaps you don't care about that sort of stuff.
|
| Every piece of data is entered by my own fair hands [SIC] personally!
| I am responsible for it all. I blame no one else.
Well then, Brian Tompsett is more ignorant of "ordinary English, titles,
styles of address, foreign languages, spelling, syntax, grammar, dates,
names, places and History" than even <I> had imagined.
| Yes. I do not unify names, and transcribe the style used in sources.
This needs to be explained. As written, it is gibberish.
| The data sources are books listed in the bibliography. None of it is
| made up, which seems to be what you imply. Data sources, for the last
| few years of entries have been shown on most records. Old records not
| re-attributed (unfortunately).
He uses "Old Records" --- Charming. To a computer scientist, I suppose
anything over, say, a year old is an "Old Record" --- or should that be
15 nanoseconds?
| >Otherwise they are reasonably and marginally adequate --- species
| >specific, of course.
| >
| >The Hull site is sometimes useful as a finding aid however. Then
it's
| >on to _The Complete Peerage_ ES or another reliable source for the
| >Genealogy and the History.
|
| Most of it comes from CP (inlc vol.XIV) and ES! (Freytag &
Schwennicke)
"Comes from..." does not mean it has been carefully vetted,
cross-checked, validated and edited by a competent human being.
Oliver Stone's film _JFK_ "Comes From" the History of the administration
of John F. Kennedy. Do you get my point?
| Useful finding aid. Yes I agree. I'd almost never recommend just
lifting
| data from web sites and adding them to ones [SIC] genealogy!
Only a fool would do so, but there are hundreds of thousands of fools
doing genealogy.
| >The further away one gets from the British data the worse the Hull
site
| >gets. That is not to say that the British data is reliable --- so
| >please don't take it that way.
|
| Yes, I agree. Most of my time has been working on UK peerages before
the
| House of Lords go... (damn too late there!)
My point has been proven. Vide supra.
| (well at least my name was spelt right!)
He's an authority on spelling too? Or is that just another "Hobby"?
Cheers,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
John P Flynn
> Brian Tompsett charges me with being a troll.
A fair and justifiable charge, supported by some weighty evidence. I
think your objection will be over-ruled.
> Experienced USENET hands will realise that as the first feeble
> counter-charge of a scoundrel who has no case --- only a very weak hand.
A very questionable generalization. But par for the course, as recent
history shows us.
> He then goes on to confirm the lion's share of what I have written.
>
> Brian Tompsett should put up a bold disclaimer on the first page of his
> site that:
>
> 1. He does work slowly because, "I have a life."
Evil man! Kill him! He has a life? That's obscene! Kill him!
> 2. He is neither a Genealogist nor a Historian and has little knowledge
> of either field.
You know this as fact? Has he confessed his ignorance of these topics?
> 3. He is experimenting on us with his hobby. "I am interested in
> correcting the errors. I am interested in genealogy, but it is a hobby
> and not a profession."
He's interested? It's a hobby? The man's a charlatan, surely! As are
all those others who claim to excel in their own pastimes and
interests.*
* Sarcasm, Spence-o. Look it up.
> 4. He is a computer scientist who is playing at Genealogy and History
> and his main interest is in the presentation of GEDCOMs. The accuracy,
> probity, academic integrity and scholarship demonstrated in said GEDCOMs
> is of distinctly secondary interest.
You are a ??????? playing at being a human complete with social skills.
On a.e.u. we don't know of your profession, and have no wish to find
out, either.
> 5. "Yes. I do not unify names, and transcribe the style used in
> sources." Whatever that gibberish means.
This from someone who claims to have an authority to comment on posts
sent to alt.english.usage. Work it out, man. It's in English, it's not
difficult!
> 6. He enters the data from books but he does not beat the sources
> against each other so that, for example he may have the same individual
> entered twice as A and B, the legitimate and illegitimate son of King X.
> But in both cases A and B will have the same name, say Richard. Hence
> my chimpanzee/gibbon data entry analogy. BT simply enters the data as
> he reads it. There is no critical Genealogical and Historical critical
> intelligence at the helm of his ship.
Ah! I see you HAVE worked it out. Well done. Ten out of ten for you,
my chap.
> 7. He should get himself a good editor, someone of stature and
> integrity, and put the name and credentials on that same first page.
Are you fishing for an invitiation to employment here, by any chance?
Don't call us, we'll call you.
> I've corrected a few of his spelling errors below. They proliferate
> like little bunrabs when the boy and girl lab rabbits are turned loose
> in the courtyard of the computer science building on weekends to frolic
> and make love.
We've had the image of primates being rewarded with sexual excitement in
this thread already, and now we have the image of rabbits copulating on
campus. Are you sure bestiality isn't a hobby of yours? This obsession
with animals involved in sex is definitely worrying.
> Vide infra.
>
> Me ke aloha pumehana,
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever...
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Brian Tompsett <b...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:94164545...@muck.dcs.ed.ac.uk...
>
>> D. Spencer Hines attepted [SIC] to speak for me, but I'd rather speak
>> for myself!
>
> I made no attempt to speak for Mr. Tompsett. He is roundly confused.
In that case, you should sympathise with him, offer him advice from
your own experience, that kind of thing.
>> It's normally not a good idea to repond to blatent [SIC] trolls, and
>> I'm sure I'll regret this, but......
>>
>> In article <7vog4p$cvc$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>>
>> D. Spencer Hines trolled in an excessively large number of groups:
>
> No, I posted just to four, important, relevant, groups. Check the
> origination of this thread. Brian Tompsett is not too swift on factual
> analysis. We see that in his database.
alt.english.usage is RELEVANT? How? We're not interested in discussing
genealogy in that newsgroup. Or didn't you know that?
>>> Unfortunately, that is quite an error-ridden source --- not reliable
>>> for serious researchers.
>>>
>>>> It is an experiment in computer science.
>>>>
>>> Brian Tompsett, who I am sure is a pleasant man, kind to his family
>>> and dogs, is not really interested in Genealogy or History. He is a
>>> computer scientist.
>>>
>>> Brian works from an entirely different agenda and sings from a
>>> different song sheet or hymnal, if you prefer religious singing.
>>> Brian is interested in how people interact with his database.
>>>
>>> We are in a real sense Brian Tompsett's laboratory rats, when we
>>> interact with that site.
>
> He doesn't take issue with any of my points, supra. Please note his
> classic attempt at a non-substantive, evasive dodge [buck and wing] in
> the paragraph infra, which fails miserably.
I thought you would recognise THAT tactic.
>> This is like the genealogical rumours that researchers so detest.
>> The fact that I work *slowly* does not give me the perculiar [SIC]
>> characteristics that you fantasise!
>>
>> Yes I *do* have a life.
>>
>> I am interested in correcting the errors. I am interested in
>> genealogy, but it is a hobby and not a profession. I am always
>> happy to defer to the professionals in these matters.
>
> "I am interested..." but what does he DO about it? Very little. Mostly
> he washes his hands.
We all need to wash our hands after reading your posts... that stuff
REALLY sticks, doesn't it?
>> I *am* a professional computer scientist. It is nice to link ones
>> hobbies with ones professional work. This database is a result of
>> that.
>
> "It is nice to link..." Hmmmmm. So noted above.
Did you need to consult a dictionary for the definition of "nice"?
>> My main interest was in the presentation of gedcom originated data.
>
> His main interest is in experimenting on US, the labrats, and how we use
> the database. Do we notice the errors? Do we make queries? Whose
> records are accessed most frequently? Where does he get the most
> "hits"? That sort of thing.
That's quite a fair point, actually. But only if it's true and he
falsely presents his database as a reliable source without any form of
disclaimer.
>>> So, it is not acceptable to cite it in any serious Genealogical or
>>> Historical work. I also doubt that Brian Tompsett enters all the
>>> data himself. I suspect he uses indentured servants, i.e., graduate
>>> students, who often revolt at the scut work [as they see it] of data
>>> entry that he assigns them. I've found some quite humorous entries
>>> salted in amongst the allegedly 'real stuff'.
>>>
>>> Of course, I may be entirely wrong, he may be using chimpanzees or
>>> gibbons chained to keyboards and rewarded from time to time with a
>>> handful of granola or an exciting sexual escapade.
>>>
>>> In summary, it's hard to tell who, or what, is doing the data entry.
>>>
>>> The data enterers, whatever species they may be, are also not very
>>> literate in ordinary English, titles, styles of address, foreign
>>> languages, spelling, syntax, grammar, dates, names, places and
>>> History.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you don't care about that sort of stuff.
>>
>> Every piece of data is entered by my own fair hands [SIC] personally!
>> I am responsible for it all. I blame no one else.
>
> Well then, Brian Tompsett is more ignorant of "ordinary English, titles,
> styles of address, foreign languages, spelling, syntax, grammar, dates,
> names, places and History" than even <I> had imagined.
He's already stated that he copies it without any editing. Do you see?
>> Yes. I do not unify names, and transcribe the style used in sources.
>
> This needs to be explained. As written, it is gibberish.
This has already been tackled. It's not difficult English, you know?
>> The data sources are books listed in the bibliography. None of it is
>> made up, which seems to be what you imply. Data sources, for the last
>> few years of entries have been shown on most records. Old records not
>> re-attributed (unfortunately).
>
> He uses "Old Records" --- Charming. To a computer scientist, I suppose
> anything over, say, a year old is an "Old Record" --- or should that be
> 15 nanoseconds?
I was wondering when the generalizations would re-enter the scene...
>>> Otherwise they are reasonably and marginally adequate --- species
>>> specific, of course.
>>>
>>> The Hull site is sometimes useful as a finding aid however. Then
>>> it's on to _The Complete Peerage_ ES or another reliable source for
>>> the Genealogy and the History.
>>
>> Most of it comes from CP (inlc vol.XIV) and ES! (Freytag &
>> Schwennicke)
>
> "Comes from..." does not mean it has been carefully vetted,
> cross-checked, validated and edited by a competent human being.
>
> Oliver Stone's film _JFK_ "Comes From" the History of the administration
> of John F. Kennedy. Do you get my point?
No historical records can be used as definitive sources of truth -- it's
all about interpretation and using every piece of research to
cross-check and corroborate the findings.
>> Useful finding aid. Yes I agree. I'd almost never recommend just
>> lifting data from web sites and adding them to ones [SIC] genealogy!
>
> Only a fool would do so, but there are hundreds of thousands of fools
> doing genealogy.
Yes. I could name at least one. Although not their first name, though.
>>> The further away one gets from the British data the worse the Hull
>>> site gets. That is not to say that the British data is reliable ---
>>> so please don't take it that way.
>>
>> Yes, I agree. Most of my time has been working on UK peerages before
>> the House of Lords go... (damn too late there!)
>
> My point has been proven. Vide supra.
Which point was that again? There were so many of the damn things...
>
>> (well at least my name was spelt right!)
>
> He's an authority on spelling too? Or is that just another "Hobby"?
He only claimed to know how to spell his own name. Read the words a bit
more carefully next time, dear.
--
johnF
RMBlack
Can your Database help me.?
RMBlack
-------------
Emmett and Angela <eeha...@capecod.net> wrote in message
news:381F8520...@capecod.net...
> I do believe this is the thread from Hell....
>
> Diane MacKenzie wrote:
>
> > I'm constantly working on my family tree, and I have updated
> > it as of recently. It contains approx. 6700 names to
> > include Scottish surnames, and relationships to medieval
> > royalty of both Scottish & English, etc. Most of the
> > source of the royalty lines was obtained from
> > "http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/" by Brian
> > Tompsett who compiled all the info. from several books, and
> > contains about 30,000 royality lines. As for my line, I
> > have from the present back to approx. ~660 A.D. My direct
> > descendents are William the Conquerer, Robert the Bruce,
Michael Burley
>
> Brian Tompsett charges me with being a troll.
He was wrong - you're only a part-time troll...
<SNIP>
MB
BAsto...@aol.com
forget this, forgive this (I KNOW you don't agree, Spencer) and get on with
our work?
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: John P Flynn <jo...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: Databases updated [DSH]
> "D. Spencer Hines" thought this with his emotions:
>
> > Brian Tompsett charges me with being a troll.
>
> A fair and justifiable charge, supported by some weighty evidence. I
> think your objection will be over-ruled.
Dear John Flynn,
I do disagree, when people start throwing words of personal abuse
it is usually because the criticism they react to was hitting home.
A while ago I sent Brian Tompsett a correction, six months later nothing had
been done with it. Then someone asked for opinions about the Hull data base.
My reaction was that people should be carefull as there were errors and
apparently correcting did not have a high priority. To this Brian Tompsett
reacted also with abuse "I had sent him an e-mail with a huge
attachment, asking him to do some work for me". I could easily prove him to
be wrong.
Dear John, the rest of your remarks are also personal, they are not
constructive and only intended to inflame. I do not always agree with "If
you can't say anything positive, don't say anything at all" but it surely
applies this time. If you enjoy abusing Spencer Hines why not do it direct?
Why do you need an audience? Spencer Hines was doing us all a service by
explaining what the Hull Data Base is about, look at WHAT he says, not HOW.
At least Spencer Hines was pursuing something positive, and you are not.
Let's get back to genealogy itself.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
on the head.
Brian Tompsett's genealogical database is badly flawed. I pointed that
out to the subscribers here. That was my intention and I accomplished
what I set out to do.
Ms. MacKenzie was using it as an authoritative source. I wanted to stop
the virus from spreading.
Brian Tompsett, not surprisingly, is none too happy about what Leo and I
have revealed. In fact he is on a ballistic trajectory into emotional
overdrive.
BT should get off his duff and: [1] rearrange his priorities and fix
the database, [2] put up a large caveat saying "this is carelessly
processed and unvetted data," or [3] withdraw it and shut the site
down.
He appears to be too lazy to do any of the above.
In the meantime, _Caveat Lector_ at the Hull site.
Why is it that so few people here are willing to speak up and point out
when something is not up to requisite genealogical standards? Why are
they so timid?
Timidity Invites Shoddy Product.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Leo van de Pas <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:003901bf265f$e4b6d840$3d433bcb@leo...
Dave Hinz
of Latin can be considered pompous by some?
Just checking. I'd hate to have you not realize how arrogant you
come across as being. As long as you know, and are OK with it, great.
Have fun,
Dave Hinz
D. Spencer Hines (D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu) wrote:
: Vide infra.
Kareem
Is not a direct descendant, one who is in direct line of inheritance?
Therefore, Edward I, but not his brother Edmund, would be the direct
descendant of his grandfather, King John and thus of William I?
--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
R. Ben Madison wrote in message <7vodhr$9un$1...@uwm.edu>...
>D. Spencer Hines wrote in message
><7vk7i6$gdt$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>Also, how does a direct descendant differ from an indirect descendant?
>
Leo van de Pas
Subject: Re: Databases Updated
> I could be wrong here, but is not a direct descendant an anachronism
today?
.............Not only today, a direct descendant is a term, probably coined
by sensationalist journalists, which should never have seen the light of
day.
Either you are a descendant or you are not. If they mean a male line
descendant, by direct, they should say so.
> Is not a direct descendant, one who is in direct line of inheritance?
Are you thinking of Heir Apparent and Heir Presumptive?
> Therefore, Edward I, but not his brother Edmund, would be the direct
> descendant of his grandfather, King John and thus of William I?
Both Edward I and his brother have identical lines of descent, one is as
'direct' as the other. Recently we had this nonsense article about Queen
Charlotte, wife of George III, being a 'direct' descendant of a Portuguese
King and his Moorish (lovely word here) mistress. Here was no inheritance
meant, except genes. Sorry, I am still of the opinion that 'direct
descendant'
is a stupid and invalid term.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
>
Eve McLaughlin
>I am descended from Eugene of Savoy; but then I had
>1 set of parents
>2 sets of grandparents
>4 sets of GreatGrandparents
>8 sets of GGGrandparents
>16 sets of GGGGrandparents
>32 sets of GGGGGrandparents
>etc
are descending from the right direction
Richard B. Stenzel
goal of locating our ancestry?
Let us move on and end this needless needling of one another.
Has anyone been researching Meyer Family ancestors? Or, if you please,
Mackin?
I could use some help at mi...@iwc.net.
R. B. Stenzel
Matthew Harley
Leo van de Pas wrote:
<....>
> A while ago I sent Brian Tompsett a correction, six months later nothing had
> been done with it. Then someone asked for opinions about the Hull data base.
> My reaction was that people should be carefull as there were errors and
> apparently correcting did not have a high priority. To this Brian Tompsett
> reacted also with abuse "I had sent him an e-mail with a huge
> attachment, asking him to do some work for me". I could easily prove him to
> be wrong.
Two years ago I contacted Brian Tompsett about some problems with his
data on the Longuevilles. His reply was curt and to the effect that he
was busy. I see nothing has been done since.
I cleared up (to my own satisfaction) the problems I had, in part by
visiting Notre Dame de Cléry where some of the Longuevilles were
buried. I spoke to some folks there and was given documents describing
what was inscribed on the tombs. I also found some very rich,
consistent material by Paul Theroff posted on alt.talk.royalty
(1996/3/16).
The Hull database continues to describe François d’Orleans, son of
Dunois (of Joan of Arc fame), as Duc de Longueville. He was not. He was
the Comte de Longueville, de Dunois et de Tancarville. The comté of
Longueville was promoted to a duché by Louis XII in 1505 and François II
(son of the former) became the first Duc de Longueville. The Hull
database just says François II acceded in 1505 - which is strictly
correct, but causes confusion by ignoring his earlier title of comte de
Longueville which he succeeded to on the death of his father in 1491.
There is much confusion in the Hull database about the succession
thereafter. There is no date of death for François II and it appears
that his nephew Claude acceded in 1508 - implying that his father Louis
and uncle François were dead by then. This is wrong. According to his
tomb, François died on 15.2.1512(=1513). He was followed by his brother
Louis as Duc de Longueville. However the "Histoire de Cléry" says Louis
only inherited the dukedom of Longueville when his niece (François II's
only surviving child) Renée died, aged 7, in May 1515 - I do not know if
this would have been likely. Would the daughter have held the title in
her own right, e.g. as duchesse? There is a document at the UK Public
Records Office E 30/753 dated 7 Aug. 1514 which contains "Powers by
Louis XII. to Louis d'Orleans, Duke of Longueville, to be his proxy in
solemnising his marriage with the Princess Mary. St. Germain en Laye."
This imples Louis was duke before the death of Renée.
This Louis de Longueville is the one who was captured by Henry VIII at
Guinegate in Picardy in August 1513 (often confused with his brother
François). He struck up a friendship with Henry and there is a story
that he won his ransom money by beating the king at tennis. He later
negotiated a treaty between the French and English kings under which
Louis XII married Henry's sister Mary Tudor. Louis was the "stand-in" at
the proxy wedding at Greenwich in August 1514. Louis has no title in
the Hull database even though he held the title either from February
1513 or from May 1515.
Louis died on 1 August 1516 and was followed by Claude. The accession
date of 1508 in the Hull data base is Claude's probable date of birth,
not his accession. The young Claude, Duc de Longueville was killed by a
musket shot on 9 November 1524 in skirmishes before the battle of Pavia.
He was succeeded by his brother Louis II who married Marie de Guise in
1534 (future wife of James V of Scotland). Louis II died in 1537 and
was succeeded by his son François III. He died young in 1551 to the
great sorrow of Marie, and was succeeded by his cousin Léonor as duc and
not by his uncle (Léonor’s father) François as given in the Hull
database (François died in 1548, i.e. before his nephew duc François
III).
Matt Harley
William Mayfield
Richard B. Stenzel <rb...@iwc.net> wrote in message
news:ksfU3.26869$23.14...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Because if you use a tainted source, you won't find YOUR ancestors ---
you'll find someone else's, not yours --- or the ones you intend to
locate.
Ranking of sources is a commonplace here.
Deal with it.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"There was a time when reporters wanted information, their questions
directed to an underlying event... They might not agree with you in the
end, but it was a matter of pride that they could accurately state your
view, before rejecting it...." [Now] reporters came to the story with
the lead fixed in their minds; they saw their job as proving what they
already knew. They didn't want information so much as evidence of
villainy." Michael Crichton, "Airframe" (1996); Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, p. 109.
Richard B. Stenzel <rb...@iwc.net> wrote in message
Ed & Joyce Thomas
> Henry II King of England is my 24th g-grandfather, William the Conquerer is
> my 26th g-grandfather and Robert the Bruce is my 21st g-grandfather. when
> I meant "direct" I meant as in grandparent or ancestor line, and not as in
> cousins that are for example 20th cousins, 10 times removed... I have the
> 36 generations listed on at my web site if you would like to view it.
>
> --
> snip
>
> > If William The Conqueror, Robert The Bruce and Henry II are your direct
> > descendants, you do indeed have a most interesting Genealogy. Please
> > show us how William the Conqueror descends from you.
> >
> > Also, how does a direct descendant differ from an indirect descendant?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> >
> > D. Spencer Hines
>
> snip
> > | contains about 30,000 royality lines. As for my line, I
> > | have from the present back to approx. ~660 A.D. My direct
> > | descendents are William the Conquerer, Robert the Bruce,
> > | Henry II (England), and so forth. If you find you may have
> > | a link with your fairly recent ancestors, I would love to
> > | share information with you. You may view my web site at the
> > | tag line
I think Spencer is wondering how these people could be your descendants?
Tiss
Ed & Joyce Thomas
> Spencer must be some troll popping in to cause trouble, I haven't seen him
> post in this newsgroup before, we all make mistakes and especially when
> we're tired.
>
> Robert Maxwell, Tacoma, WA. de...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Michael Burley <mbu...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:381DDB92...@teleport.com...
> > Diane,
> >
> > Spencer is just having a little fun with you. This sort of thing doesn't
> always
> > play well on USENET.
> >
> > Mike in Oregon
> >
> >
> > Diane MacKenzie wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been so busy working on my tree for the past few years,
> > > that I haven't viewed these newsgroups in a while. Are you
> > > always this cynical? I gather you must be the "bully" of
> > > the groups, since you don't post your email address for
> > > personal messages, which this sort of thing should be.
> >
> > <SNIP>
I think he is a she, Robert
Tiss
Clan Maxwell
Barry Ruck
comment
Please also note that you are all CROSS POSTING to these four groups :
alt.scottish.clans
alt.genealogy
soc.genealogy.britain
soc.genealogy.medieval
Regards,
Barry Ruck. Harlow, Essex.
Ruck,(Glos. & Lincs) Gostelow,Goddard & Eley (Lincs)
Ed & Joyce Thomas
>
>
> Eve McLaughlin
>
> Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
> Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
In your signature what does the Bucks stand for?
Tiss
R. Ben Madison
>> Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
>> Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
>In your signature what does the Bucks stand for?
Buckinghamshire, I would imagine. Unless it's an American county somewhere.
Steven Akins
R. Ben Madison wrote in message <805ht5$pa3$1...@uwm.edu>...
>Ed & Joyce Thomas wrote in message <38261EE4...@i1.net>...
>
>>> Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
>>> Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
>
>>In your signature what does the Bucks stand for?
>
>
>Buckinghamshire, I would imagine. Unless it's an American county somewhere.
There is a Bucks Co., Pennsylvania.
Darlene Lyon Kruse
Also: Can you please post the title of the Perley book? The name Perley
shows up as a middle name for some of the men on my Lyon branch -- I'm
curious about the name.
Many thanks.
darlene
-----Original Message-----
From: R. Ben Madison <tal...@execpc.com>
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Databases Updated
>Ed & Joyce Thomas wrote in message <38261EE4...@i1.net>...
>
>>> Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
>>> Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
>
>>In your signature what does the Bucks stand for?
>
>
>Buckinghamshire, I would imagine. Unless it's an American county somewhere.
>
Ed & Joyce Thomas
> D. Spencer Hines wrote in message
> <7vknaf$4go$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> >Vide infra.
> >
> >No, not in the least.
> >
> >I'm not trying to have "fun" at anyone's expense.
>
> Well, perhaps your train of thought does not "set" well with some people.
Pot, kettle, black!!
Oh, you are having fun! harassing everyone, aren't you? BG. I think you
have run your course. We're not paying that much attention to youany longer,
Steve
Tiss
Rodney Hall
--
Rodney HALL
Heywood, Lancashire
rodne...@iname.com
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/rmhh
Ed & Joyce Thomas <ejth...@i1.net> wrote in message
news:38261EE4...@i1.net...
| Eve McLaughlin wrote:
|
| >
| >
| > Eve McLaughlin
| >
| > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
| > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
|
| In your signature what does the Bucks stand for?
|
| Tiss
|
|
|
Steven Akins
Ed +ACY- Joyce Thomas wrote in message +ADw-3826E5D7.858DE3E+AEA-i1.net+AD4-...
+AD4-Pot, kettle, black+ACEAIQ-
+AD4-Oh, you are having fun+ACE- harassing everyone, aren't you? BG. I think you
+AD4-have run your course. We're not paying that much attention to youany
longer,
+AD4-Steve
+AD4-Tiss
Pot, kettle, black - indeed+ACE- Do I detect a hint of harassment in your
message here, Tiss? What is that old saw about people who live in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones? Well my dear, this little ng is a glass house
if I ever saw one, otherwise I would have been oblivious to all the stone
throwing that you sports constantly engage in. Well, I like to throw stones
just as much as the next fellow, and if it means that I happen to break a
pane or two in your little conservatory of enlightenment - so be it+ACE-
mjack
Rodney Hall wrote in message <806p1o$8jb$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Ed & Joyce Thomas
> R. Ben Madison wrote in message <805ht5$pa3$1...@uwm.edu>...
> >Ed & Joyce Thomas wrote in message <38261EE4...@i1.net>...
> >
> >>> Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
> >>> Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
> >
> >>In your signature what does the Bucks stand for?
> >
> >
> >Buckinghamshire, I would imagine. Unless it's an American county somewhere.
>
> There is a Bucks Co., Pennsylvania.
That was what I was thinking. I have some ancestors from Bucks Co., PA You
never let a lead get away. GBG
Tiss
Rob Churchill
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:19:04 -0000, "Rodney Hall"
<rodne...@iname.com>, perching on a stool with a hole in the top,
wrote:
>The well known Eve McLaughlin writes from Buckinghamshire - England.
>Rodney HALL
>Heywood, Lancashire
>rodne...@iname.com
>http://web.ukonline.co.uk/rmhh
Rob Churchill
Castleton, Lancashire
(where the locals don't have tails ;-)
_ _ _ _
( \ ( \ / ) / )
\_ \_ Rob.Ch...@tesco.net _/ _/
(_)-(_) *Carpae Manana* (_)-(_)
Eve McLaughlin
>
>In your signature what does the Bucks stand for?
--
Eve McLaughlin