Re: Mac Sweeney Doe update


Sean J Murphy wrote:
> I know that some regard the exercise as pointless, but for those still
> interested, the current state of play in the Mac Sweeney Doe war can be
> read at http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/macsweeneydoe.html
> The claimant's case, in which he exposes the doings of a certain
> pseudo-scholarly blackguard who has challenged his 'validation' as chief
> is at http://www.sweeneyclanchief.com/id27.htm
>
> Referring to our earlier discussions, I have now discovered that there
> is a further formatting error in the pedigree on the claimant's website.
> Cutting through all the evasions and irrelevancies, we clearly have a
> situation where the claimant's case of succession from Sir Maolmhuire
> MacSweeney, d 1630, is based on creative tweaking of orally transmitted
> pedigrees (hence the relieved resort to MacDonald of Keppoch). In what I
> take to be a significant retreat, the limited extracts from the
> validating report of a professional genealogist, now a member of the
> Board of the National Library and the Committee on Genealogy and
> Heraldry, have been removed from the claimant's website. The personal
> attacks on myself more than adequately fill up the resulting blank space.

Well, you have certainly been filling up blank space by expanding your
self-laudatory encomium in your referenced "report." How long before
you proclaim yourself an expert on Scottish Chiefs, and give definitive
judgment that the standards of the Court of Session are "simply not
acceptable"?

As regards personal attacks, are you really so blind that you cannot
see that your own posts and web site are full of personal attacks in
the form of innuendo and false association?
Whether it is Tom MacSweeney Doe, the new Chief Herald or anyone else
who cares to disagree with you, you invariably make a point of
associating our positions and actions with those of frauds. While you
are always careful never to come right out and actually say what you
obviously think, the intended inference and innuendo are very, very
clear. You also tend to be economical with the truth - you simply omit
important facts that don't fit your position. An obvious example (which
I pointed out previously), is that in your extensive MacSweeney Doe
"report" you somehow can't find the space to mention that Tom's family
have claimed chiefly descent for over a century. Instead, by omission,
the reader is left with the impression that this is a brand-new claim,
similar to that of Terence MacCarthy, and presumably equally valid.

>
> Sean Murphy

Regards,
The Chief

.

Relevant Pages