Todd--humor a poor sock puppet, and give us the current thinking on the children of Robert Abell
binky
I happened to look into the family of Robert Abell. I have no
difficulty accepting that Robert Abell himself was who you claim him
to be, and that he was possessed of a royal descent.
However, in Charles Edwin Booth's "One Branch of the Booth
Family' (1910), some of the children of said Robert were considered
only "probable," including Experience Abell, who married John Baldwin,
from whom the line listed on your website runs. According to Booth,
the records in the MA town (Reheboth, I think) are lacking.
I can only give you my honest opinion--it looks a little flimsy. Can
you favor us with what proof of her parentage has been assembled since
1910?
Even Roberts doesn't list this line, and Richardson doesn't list
Robert Abell's children in his MCA.
I've no doubt you have it nailed down completely. But for the benefit
of a humble sock puppet, kindly recite it.
binky
and darned if I didn' find nuthin'.
I'm just teasing Todd--he's a great guy for a nerd, and I know he
wants to assure this newsgroup that the line he's claiming on his
website (I think he might know HTML) is righteous, man.
Sure, he says a lot of stuff that seems arrogant and stuck-up, but
he's a towering figure in the world of (what is it?) Gn... what
the .... and frankly, who has time to document anything anymore, I
mean guys like Will Johnson who are always chirping "What's your
source,' they're a pain in the ass. You don't need to document, you
just make it up, then repeat it until it's burned into your mind like
the memory of an angry nun rapping a ruler on your knuckles.... "Will
forgot his gym clothes for the third time."
Roberts gets his crap from guys like Todd... on the strength of their
reputations. He draws from the best talent available.
Todd's publications include:
How to clean a bunsen burner nozzle (hint--disconnect the gas hose
first, and throw that cigar out the window).
When to toss out petrie dishes, and when to keep them (if no one's
looking--yeah just scrape 'em clean).
A proposed patent for test tubes with flat bottoms.
A bus rider's etiquette when your 25 year old Datsun Honey Bee throws
a rod.
But to the main question--Experience Abell! Do we have another Mary
Miller Briggs here? It's an emergency--the credibility of this
newsgroup is on the line as one of the co-owners and the author of
many posts is challenged. Will he duck, or will he come out
swinging? Does he have evidence, or is her parentage just
"probable." And what does it mean for the fight for good standards?
Only Todd can answer those questions. An anxious world awaits....
mhol...@mac.com
1620-1633"[Boston, Mass., NEHGS, 1995], I:3-6, citing Plymouth Colony
Records 2(2)14-15; also at the Mayflower Descendant 15:239, "the house
and land taken out as the eldest son's, 130 pounds to Mary Abell given
by her father as her full part, . .. and to the five other children,
each of them." Experience Abell married at Norwich , Conn. John
Baldwin, Norwich Vital Records, 55. Abraham, is the eldest son, then
Mary, and the five other children are, including Experience, picked up
by marriage records. There is also a 1940 Abell Genealogy and his RD
is at The Genealogist 5 (1984):158-71.
BTW, citing to 1910 secondary works is seldom wise in genealogy. The
good stuff (most of the time) isn't online for free.
binky
cited some primary evidence, that's true. The probate record
indicates Robert Abell had 7 surviving children. And you've cited
some marriage records at Norwich, Conn., "in which the children are
picked up."
But what record actually names Experience Abell as the daughter of
Robert Abell? Do you see what I'm saying? Does Experience Abell's
marriage record name her father as Robert Abell?
I'm not questioning that Robert Abell had a royal descent. What I
want to know, is what record names his children, and specifically
names Experience as one of them? Are there some land records? You
must have more than this.
binky
free from Google Books. I located the marriage record for Experience
Abell on p. 55, and this is the quote:
"John Bauldwen and Experience Abell were married Anno 1680."
I see nothing in this marriage record that identifies the father of
Experience Abell. So--I ask you again:
Specifically, what record identifies the father of Experience Abell?
Aren't you just assuming that these people married at Norwich must be
the 7 (unnamed) children of the probate record at Plymouth?
tish
HALLMARKS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND METHODOLOGY
ARE CONSISTENCY OF DISCIPLINE PRINCIPLES
NO DOUBT TODD WIPES OUT USED PETRIE DISHES
WITH HIS PROFESSORIAL LEATHER PADDED ELBOWS
AND DUMPS HIS BRIAR PIPE ASHES IN THE DNA SOUP
DAFFY TAFFY DUCK KNOWS HIS MODERATION RULES
ARE UNDISCIPLINED AS HE PRAISES SOCK PUPPET
LETICIA CLUFF WHO IS THE HIDDEN ICE PRINCESS
RENIA SIMONDS SLEUTHING HER MOTZARELLA/ETERNAL-SEPTEMBER
ISP THROUGH GERMANY AND HER RENIA HOGG
WHICH SLIPS THROUGH CAVE MAN TODD'S NATTY BEARD
BECAUSE TODD CURRYS FAVOR WITH THOSE HE LIKES
AND CHASTISES THOSE HE DOES NOT LIKE
WHICH PUTS HIS GENEALOGICAL DNA RESULTS IN THE SAME RESULTS
THOSE HE LIKES WILL GET GOOD DNA READS
THOSE HE DISLIKES WILL GET FILE 13 BAD DNA READS
MAKING TODD LESS THAN YOUR VIRTUOSO SCIENTIFIC SCHOLARS
mhol...@mac.com
Basic genealogy. The mother Joanna remarried and went to Norwich. We
know there are five other children than Abraham and Mary born at a
certain time, and they the ones named Abell (an unusual name) married
at Norwich. I'm really sorry that you are so bothered about your
ancestress Ms. Skipwith-Dale. Everyone has someone for whom the
records are just not there. You have every right to put her on your
charts and proclaim her royal descent. However, if you seek approval
from the scholarly community, which you seem to be, it's not going to
be there for the reasons everyone has already stated (ad nauseum). I
have a lovely preponderance of the evidence case for a Mayflower line,
but the society will never accept it. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but
it lacks the final document in that nasty 1780-1820 time period and
I'm stuck. Everyone has these things. There's no point in running
down other people's ancestry. It won't make that smoking gun document
come to light in Virginia.
royala...@msn.com
< I'm really sorry that you are so bothered about your
< ancestress Ms. Skipwith-Dale. Everyone has someone for whom the
< records are just not there. You have every right to put her on your
< charts and proclaim her royal descent. However, if you seek
approval
< from the scholarly community, which you seem to be, it's not going
to
< be there for the reasons everyone has already stated (ad nauseum).
Um.... clears his throat .....
In the case of Diana Skipwith, wife of Edward Dale, of Virginia, I
believe she was the mother of all three of his children. I've stated
my reasons previously here on the newsgroup why this is so. The fact
that she used her maiden name after marriage is readily explained by
the fact that she was one of the highest born ladies to come to the
colonies. Another lady with high born connections who did the same
thing was Anne Baynton, wife of Christopher Batt, of Massachusetts.
Anne Baynton's use of her maiden name after marriage was discovered by
the much esteemed John Brandon. Yes, it's rare for English ladies to
use their maiden name after marriage, but it did happen.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
John
A more balanced view from a member of "the scholarly community" would
be the remarks of Brad Verity in April 2006:
"My own position is that there is insufficient evidence to conclude
the maternity of any of Edward Dale's daughters, though the likeliest
possibility is that they were by his one recorded wife, Diana
Skipwith. However, since Dale's
own origins and early years are obscure, the possibility that they
were from a previous wife, or were illegitimate, cannot yet be
eliminated."
And another opinion, from Nat Taylor in October 2008:
"Since Charles M. Ward's article suggesting that Edward Dale had
another wife before Diana Skipwith based on the apparent use of
Diana's maiden name in 1655, Diana's traditionally accepted maternity
of Dale's eldest daughter Katherine (Dale) Carter has been thrown out
(perhaps, I think, prematurely), and in consequence the maternity of
Dale's other two daughters has also been placed in doubt, moved to the
'uncertain' category for chronological reasons."
As mentioned above, this has been discussed ad nauseum in this group,
and it seems that no firm conclusion has been reached - despite the
certainty of some individuals, on both sides of the issue. Reasonable
people can usually "agree to disagree" on matters such as this. But
it seems that there are few "reasonable people" left in this group.
royala...@msn.com
Abell's estate taken 9 August 1663:
Source: Mayflower Descendant, 15 (1913): 239.
binky
Doug's record proves there were 7 children of Robert Abell living at
the time his inventory was taken, and that Abell had a daughter named
Mary. But it doesn't give the name of the others, does it? There
isn't a record naming Experience Abell as the daughter of Robert
Abell, is there? Or proving that Experience was a sister to Mary
Abell.
Once again, a claim by a member of this newsgroup has been shown to
lack suficient support--and in this case, a co-owner of the newsgroup.
[The proof that Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers was Diana Skipwith's daughter
is simple. The only claim allowed by law to a child of a parent at
the time was against an intestate estate; her father left a will, so
the claim must have been against Diana Skipwith; therefore, Skipwith
was her mother. And Skipwith didn't have an estate.]
I don't care--do whatever you want.
binky
mentioned in Robert Abell's inventory. In fact, there's no record
naming the father of Experience Abell.
You're assuming because Abell's widow remarried and moved to Norwich,
and Experience married in Norwich, that Experience must be one of
those children. It's a circumstantial case. It's possible Experience
could be related to Robert Abell in some other way than being his
daughter. This line hasn't even been proved by a preponderance of the
evidence. There's no record stating Experience Abell's relationship
to anyone.
Right?
binky
Rogers "twelve pence in full of all claimes whatsoever."
In 1694 Virginia, the only "claime" allowed by law of a child against
a parent was for a share in an intestate estate. Edward Dale left a
will. Therefore, the claim had to be against Diana (Skipwith) Dale.
Therefore, Diana (Skipwith) Dale was the mother of Elizabeth (Dale)
Rogers.
Instead of manufacturing quotes from Brad Verity and Nat Taylor, why
don't you ask an attorney? An attorney who is also a genealogist.
Know any?
mhol...@mac.com
I actually just wrote an editorial that will appear in the next issue
of the Mayflower Descendant that touches upon this. When negative
evidence is introduced I feel the burden of proof for a genealogical
conclusion is much greater. In the case I use a woman Elizabeth
Dickinson is noted as alive in the will of her father but not included
in the will of her mother ten years later (although all other children
are). Using Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is that she died in
between the wills. If you want to prove that she was indeed alive and
living past the second will, the burden of proof is greater and you
really need a document that clearly identifies the relationship.
In the cases at hand, there is no negative evidence for the Abell
family so it is correct to assume that Experience was the daughter of
Robert Abell. In the Skipwith-Dale case there is negative evidence
because she used her maiden name while still married. I'm not saying
the relationship isn't true. I'm saying because of this evidence, the
bar gets raised and you need to address it with even more proof. I
agree with Doug that high born women still used maiden names when
married at times, but I've only seen it 15th century England and not
in colonial America (Mrs. Batt/Baynton notwithstanding).
royala...@msn.com
fact, the evidence in this case is quite good that Edward Dale had
only one wife, namely Diana Skipwith.
In any event, I think the words "scholar" and "scholarly community"
are being loosely used here on the newsgroup. I would only put a
handful of people in the category of a "genealogical scholar" as very
few genealogists of this day have obtained any academic training
related to genealogy or published full length books as real scholars
of the past have done.
Renia
I've only seen it pertain to Scotswomen.
taf
> In any event, I think the words "scholar" and "scholarly community"
> are being loosely used here on the newsgroup. I would only put a
> handful of people in the category of a "genealogical scholar" as very
> few genealogists of this day have obtained any academic training
> related to genealogy or published full length books as real scholars
> of the past have done.
What a prototypical example of begging the question in one's own
favor. Sad, really sad.
royala...@msn.com
> What a prototypical example of begging the question in one's own
> favor. Sad, really sad.
taf knows full well that I would never be considered a "scholar" in
his field unless I had the right academic credentials and unless I
published, published, published. The discipline of genealogy should
be no different.
dr
taf
And now a strawman, with a bit of sleight of hand to boot.
John
> fact, the evidence in this case is quite good that Edward Dale had
> only one wife, namely Diana Skipwith.
Once again, this is an incomplete and unbalanced statement of the
issue and conveniently ignores evidence to the contrary. Hardly the
work of a "scholar", however one chooses to define that term.
>
> In any event, I think the words "scholar" and "scholarly community"
> are being loosely used here on the newsgroup. I would only put a
> handful of people in the category of a "genealogical scholar" as very
> few genealogists of this day have obtained any academic training
> related to genealogy or published full length books as real scholars
> of the past have done.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
You perhaps didn't note that I placed the term "scholarly community"
in quotes, as it's far too formal a term to apply to virtually all the
participants (or now former participants) in this group. But,
regardless of whether they constitute a "scholarly community", their
contributions do have value and should not be denigrated by your
narrow and self-serving definition of what you think a "scholar" is.
BTW, in academic circles publication of "full length books" is
certainly not the only criterion by which "real scholars" are
identified. There are other modes of publication that are equally
"scholarly" - e.g., articles in journals and more recently other forms
of publication, especially in a changing information environment.
binky
(Abell) Baldwin as the daughter of Robert Abell, and there isn't one
naming her as a sister of Mary Abell, either. What you have is a
Pymouth probate record indicating that Robert Abell had 7 children,
and one of those children was Mary Abell.
You know how in censuses before 1850, they list the children by gender
and age, but not by name? You're using that Plymouth probate record
the same way. Only in the Abell case you don't even have a gender
breakdown for the children. Right?
You're making an assertion based on skimpy evidence, and then saying:
If there's no negative evidence, it's OK. That's unacceptable. A lot
of genealogists do that, and it's not right--and it's particularly
reprehensible in someone who claims to be some sort of scholar. Why
don't you ask BCG or ASG what they think about that kind of "proof?"
Naturally Todd isn't going to try to defend the Abell line.
As far as the Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers line is concerned, none of you
have an adequate grounding in 17th century VA law, so I refer you to
an attorney--but no one will ever post an attorney's comments, will
they?
This information isn't directly relevant to this thread--under common
law, the right to inherit under a will is created by the person
writing the will. You can't pop up later and assert a right to
inherit under that will. And you can't assert a right to inherit more
than what you were left in a will--at least not in those days. If
you're confused, while you're talking to that lawyer, ask them about
that as well.
taf
As dr apparently doesn't know (which in and of itself tells you
something), in my field as in most others it is well recognized that
all of the training in the world cannot turn some people into
scholars, and many an old hack or lab monkey (unthinking robot) will
still publish, publish, publish. There are those who with all of their
training are really noting but glorified abstractors. They may even
have written a book or two, but if ever they stray (or are coaxed)
outside of their limited comfort zone, they reveal themselves to lack
a true understanding of the scholarly process. On the other hand,
there are scholars without formal training who could destroy the
arguments of a self-congratulatory popinjay while using most of her
brain to decide what toppings to put on her pizza, and there are
experts who publish only rarely or in atypical formats, if at all. (I
know of one who lives in a mobile home in the parking lot of a lab. He
spends his days (and nights) simply thinking and pouring through the
literature, connecting seemingly unrelated clues. All he does is pass
one brilliant idea after another on to his colleagues for them to
perform all of the drudgery. Can't be bothered with the tedious
publication process as he has already moved on to the next insight.)
dr's original post represents a curious pattern among the self-
satisfied. They have this unsurprising tendency to define 'true'
accomplishment as possessing precisely the qualifications they have
obtained, and excluding those aspects in which others excel. Another
one of those quirks of human nature, I guess.
taf
mhol...@mac.com
> No, mhollick--you're wrong. There is no record naming Experience
> (Abell) Baldwin as the daughter of Robert Abell, and there isn't one
> naming her as a sister of Mary Abell, either. What you have is a
> Pymouth probate record indicating that Robert Abell had 7 children,
> and one of those children was Mary Abell.
>
> You know how in censuses before 1850, they list the children by gender
> and age, but not by name? You're using that Plymouth probate record
> the same way. Only in the Abell case you don't even have a gender
> breakdown for the children. Right?
>
> You're making an assertion based on skimpy evidence, and then saying:
> If there's no negative evidence, it's OK. That's unacceptable. A lot
> of genealogists do that, and it's not right--and it's particularly
> reprehensible in someone who claims to be some sort of scholar. Why
> don't you ask BCG or ASG what they think about that kind of "proof?"
>
(into Mr. Farmerie) and are not willing to listen to any other point
of view. The ASG obviously approves of the Abell example since it
appears in the Great Migration, edited by a Fellow of the ASG. So,
you are alone in your genealogical opinion of proof.
It is sad that your personal difficulties with Mr. Farmerie has lead
you to destroy (the only appropriate word) SGM creating collateral
damage to the rest of us. Certainly you and I have no problem and
there are dozens of others that you've hurt in the process. Can we
please return SGM to its original imperfect and contentious state
where every once in awhile you found something wonderful posted?
M.
binky
I can't address the question of whether you are a scholar in any
field. What I can address is the proof for the claim (and it's not a
legal claim here) that Experience (Abell) Baldwin was the daughter of
Robert Abell:
1. A probate record filed in Plymouth, MA shows that Robert Abell had
7 surviving children, one of whom was Mary Abell.
2. Abell's widow remarried and moved to Norwich, CT.
3. Experience Abell married John Baldwin in Norwich in 1680.
Those are really the only documented facts in the case.
As for how those facts are used, this is the argument:
Abell is an uncommon name. Abell's widow moved to Norwich, CT. Since
the marriages of Abell's in Norwich matches the number of Abell's in
the Plymouth probate record, they must be the children of Robert
Abell.
It's a circumstantial case. Given the scarcity of the surname, these
marriages may well represent the children of Robert Abell. But there
doesn't seem to be much more here, and it's not enough.
royala...@msn.com
> As dr apparently doesn't know (which in and of itself tells you
> something), in my field as in most others it is well recognized that
> all of the training in the world cannot turn some people into
> scholars, and many an old hack or lab monkey (unthinking robot) will
> still publish, publish, publish.
It's relatively easy to tell if someone has training, experience,
scope, and depth. Many names in both the genealogical and historical
fields readily come to my mind who fit this criteria. They are
neither an old hack (or hackett) or a lab monkey. They are
accomplished scholars who have written many books and articles
throughout the course of their career and generously give of their
time to help newcomers. What distinguishes them from the amateurs
like taf is their many years of training and their solid list of
publications. It's the same in any academic field.
Renia
What distinguishes the scholar from the non-scholar isn't the number of
publications or even the matter of being published. A scholar is one who
is always learning and researching among a variety of sources, building
up his knowledge, layer by layer, until a theory emerges. At that point,
the scholar may then seek to publish his theory.
taf
> It's relatively easy to tell if someone has training, experience,
> scope, and depth.
No, its not. Some who have supposedly undergone training (a process,
not an outcome), who claim experience (which accrues whether one is
competent or not), who have published books (yawn), demonstrate such a
lack of understanding of the basic concepts of scholarly proof that
one could never tell. For example, some who claim training operate
under the misconception that citing specific examples is sufficient to
prove gross over-generalizations being presented as definitive
patterns of behavior.
> Many names in both the genealogical and historical
> fields readily come to my mind who fit this criteria.
. . . or fail to appropriately match tenses when using multi-syllabic
words.
> What distinguishes them from the amateurs
> like taf
. . . or construct logical fallacies such as the false dichotomy. The
opposite of amateur is professional, not scholar, and they are
reflections of the economy of the pursuit, not the quality.
. . . or use biased criteria, intended to achieve the desired
conclusion.
So, it is not always simple. And now you have abandoned the pretext of
speaking hypothetically, revealing the true intent of the entire
exercise of yours was simply self-congratulatory in nature. What? You
thought you would take the opportunity offered by the loons running
amok to fluff your ego before the lurkers?
Kind of funny actually. By the incompetence with which you try to
prove yourself more a scholar than others, or in fact your very need
to do so, you reveal more about yourself than your supposed analysis
does.
taf
mhol...@mac.com
> I've only seen it pertain to Scotswomen.
See Kirk, Marshall K., "Katherine (Hungerford) (West) Leventhorpe: A
Correction to the New Complete Peerage," NEHGR 150 (1996), p. 93.
It's a good example of the genre.
binky
over there. You know what it is? The growing realization that you're
a nerd. That's right--those thick eyeglasses you got from America's
Best (they fibbed about the designer frames, didn't they?) have
blinded you to the horrible truth--you're still the guy running the A/
V equipment in high school. You dug the cheerleaders didn't you?
C,mon--everybody did. I'm no different--even though I thought school
spirit was BS, well... a cheerleader is a cheerleader.
You're wound too tight, man--let go, wallow in the muck with the sock
puppets. Yeah, it feels good, doesn't it? Go ahead, it's better to
be a sock puppet than a nerd.
Renia
I don't have access to that publication. What does it say?
Curt Emanuel
news:32614b5b-b016-4881...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Your terminology is off. A scholar can be an amateur and a professional
historian can NOT be a scholar (or scholarly).
An amateur is someone who doesn't get paid. Period. And that doesn't
determine whether they're a scholar or not - many of the best historians of
the 19th century were well educated gentlemen with classical training,
particularly in Latin, who didn't get paid (or paid very little) for their
work. They were amateurs - and scholars.
Today there are thousands of amateurs who know every detail of their town's
history (in the US anyway). They know who settled there; where everyone is
buried; when and how the railroad did or didn't come; when prominent
businesses, hotels or brothels opened or closed; why the county seat was in
this town and not the other one, etc. They may run a small museum that's
open one afternoon a week or on Saturday - or maybe they just give talks
every now and then to the local Rotary club and have students sent to them
from high school history teachers. They aren't paid but they've extensively
and exhaustively researched their little piece of the world. I consider them
scholars.
--
Curt Emanuel
cema...@ffni.com
wjho...@aol.com
taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
<<For example, some who claim training operate
under the misconception that citing specific examples is sufficient to
prove gross over-generalizations being presented as definitive
patterns of behavior.>>
----------------
Which proves my oft-cited theory that people in the biotechnology field prefer run-on sentences.
wjho...@aol.com
An attorney who is a genealogist, and who has also studied 17th century Virginia probate law, and who is an acknowledged expert in same.? And who will work for free.
Know any?
-----Original Message-----
-------------------------------
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 message
wjho...@aol.com
Do you have a degree in pseudo-psychology, or is this just a neurotic hobby ?
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tickled pink that we have amongst us, a person who can peer deep within our souls and tell us who we really are.
When Nostradamus peered into his water-filled cauldron every night, I bet he saw his own face a lot.
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
binky
Talk to an attorney--I think there's somebody you know who might fill
you in. If you didn't know anything about it, why were you shooting
your trap off? Is this your way out--now you say you can't talk to a
lawyer? Baloney.
wjho...@aol.com
You certainly can.? That you don't get that, at the get-go, only shows your lack of grounding in probate law.? In fact your lack of grounding in law at all.
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
binky
I'm not goimg to take the bait.
Here's the URL for the Virginia Bar Association:
Here's a toll free number for their Lawyer Referral Service:
The VBA will direct you to an attorney who will answer your question,
probably for free. Anyone else can do it, too.
Will "Duck and Run" Johnson has a big mouth, but when challenged,
backs down--even when he can get the answer for free.
Hari Seldon
"Curt Emanuel" <cema...@ffni.com> schreef in bericht
news:h9tufj$ve$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Tricky,
When they amass endless facts with their History of Gizmo-town, they are
still no scholars imho. They're just a collector of facts (like most of
genealogist do, and I mean this with every respect possible). Renia hit the
nail on it's head in her post.
William Black
A lot of people spend a lot of time teaching undergraduates that there's
a hell of a difference between history and mere antiquarianism.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
SolomonW
> An amateur is someone who doesn't get paid. Period. And that doesn't
> determine whether they're a scholar or not - many of the best historians of
> the 19th century were well educated gentlemen with classical training,
> particularly in Latin, who didn't get paid (or paid very little) for their
> work. They were amateurs - and scholars.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
If they got any payment then by this definition they are not amateurs.
But it is a real problem even today. One historian who did a study on
convicts in Australia told my Mum that the sales of his book, which took
almost two years of his life generated for him about 10 cents for each hour
of work.
am...@hotmail.com
> <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message
Things used to be much easier in the Former Motherland of the Pink
Elephants: if you were a professional (does not matter in which area),
you had an official document qualifying you as such. If you did not
have such a document, you were an amateur. Simple, clear and saves a
lot of time on figuring who is who.
[Of course, one may say that the situation when 3 most popular
songwriters were, orfficially, amateurs in the song-writing area
(because, officially, they were actor, playwright and a teacher) is a
little bit on an absurd side but this would probably be discounted as
'unconstructive criticism"]
:-)
Curt Emanuel
news:h9vjod$k0u$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes - however while a discussion of what it takes to be considered a
historian rather than an archivist/antiquarian might be a very interesting
one, it's not relevant to my earlier post which is simply that there are
plenty of amateur scholars out there - in whatever field they happen to be
engaged in. I happen to agree - mostly - with Renia's description. I'd have
to think a while on whether a theory is required - it is in some fields, not
in others. The antiquarian may still be a scholar, so long as he or she
consults sources and is able to read them critically, assess historical
and/or archaeological data or evidence for veracity, etc, at a standard in
keeping with his or her area or topic of study. That person may not be
interested in a theory though. Certainly to be a historian one should be
capable of arriving at some conclusions based on an interpretation of the
evidence.
As an aside, the inability to critically read sources is why I would not
consider myself a scholar, at least not in Medieval History.
--
Curt Emanuel
cema...@ffni.com
Curt Emanuel
news:Y4Kwm.105538$7B.3...@newsfe28.ams2...
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:33:41 -0400, Curt Emanuel wrote:
>
>> An amateur is someone who doesn't get paid. Period. And that doesn't
>> determine whether they're a scholar or not - many of the best historians
>> of
>> the 19th century were well educated gentlemen with classical training,
>> particularly in Latin, who didn't get paid (or paid very little) for
>> their
>> work. They were amateurs - and scholars.
>
>
> Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
> If they got any payment then by this definition they are not amateurs.
>
Yes - my "Period." was probably overkill. Someone who may have been paid ten
cents a word for a single journal article at some point in the last ten
years would still be an amateur IMO.
--
Curt Emanuel
cema...@ffni.com
WJho...@aol.com
am...@hotmail.com writes:
> Things used to be much easier in the Former Motherland of the Pink
> Elephants: if you were a professional (does not matter in which area),
> you had an official document qualifying you as such. If you did not
> have such a document, you were an amateur. Simple, clear and saves a
> lot of time on figuring who is who.>>
--------------------
Interesting. I do not know the answer to this question, but are their
actually documents that certify that a person is a Master LampMaker or a Master
Butcher or something of that sort? A Master Stonemason (not a freemason),
some kind of craft to which a person has been admit?
What if some competing group of Linen Makers wanted to compete with the
existing group of Linen Makers and form their own craft guild? What then?
Will
Ulysses at Langdale Tarn
> "SolomonW" <Solom...@nospamLamp.com.au> wrote in message
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everyone in this thread is using "amateur" as the antonym of "scholar
"
when I think the correct word is "layman."
Before 1920 any American with a highschool diploma could take 4 months
of study in a medical school, receive a license to practise medicine,
and
call himself a doctor. After 1920 these "diploma mill" doctors were
consigned
to the southern plantations where they finished their careers caring
for
plantation workers (negroes) and their white share-cropper
counterparts.
My grand uncle Stanton was a plantation doctor in his old age. He
drank a
lot of whiskey and he married a 16 year old boarding house maid who
bore
him a daughter. The last time I visited the Arkansas River
bottomlands,
there were folks alive who remembered him with great affection. He
was a
beloved medical doctor but he was not a scholar.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~
Surreyman
> <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message
Precisely.
Surreyman
J Antero
"Curt Emanuel" <cema...@ffni.com> wrote in message
news:h9tufj$ve$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Today there are thousands of amateurs who know every detail of their
> town's history (in the US anyway). They know who settled there; where
> everyone is buried; when and how the railroad did or didn't come; when
> prominent businesses, hotels or brothels opened or closed; why the county
> seat was in this town and not the other one, etc. They may run a small
> museum that's open one afternoon a week or on Saturday - or maybe they
> just give talks every now and then to the local Rotary club and have
> students sent to them from high school history teachers. They aren't paid
> but they've extensively and exhaustively researched their little piece of
> the world. I consider them scholars.
If he deals with the history of his town objectively and honestly, good and
bad, then he's being scholarly, whether you want to call him a scholar or
not.
If he ties to bend the information around to what suits him or his patrons,
and then present it as history, then he's a propagandist hack, whether he's
paid for it or not.
Baldoni
A scholar can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of
the Lone Ranger.
--
Count Baldoni
In hoc signo vinces
VtSkier
> royala...@msn.com has brought this to us :
>
> A scholar can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of
> the Lone Ranger.
>
over 40 who can.
RW
--
> Count Baldoni
> In hoc signo vinces
Veni, vedi, velcro.
I came, I saw, I stuck around.
erilar
VtSkier <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> Baldoni wrote:
> > royala...@msn.com has brought this to us :
> >
> > A scholar can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of
> > the Lone Ranger.
> >
> I can't and I'm sure there are few Americans
> over 40 who can.
> RW
Actually, I think of both 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
Jeffrey Hamilton
> royala...@msn.com has brought this to us :
>
> A scholar can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of
> the Lone Ranger.
Speak for yourself, Kemo Sabe. <g>
cheers.....Jeff