Re: Juliane Fitz Maurice, wife of Thomas de Clare, was not the daughter of Emeline Longespée

(snip of pointless cross-posting)

On Mar 7, 8:54 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

As for repeating the information, if you read my post correctly (and
you didn't the first time), not everyone has the correct information
in their database.  

Nope, here's what you said in your original cross-post, dated 7 March
at 05.36 am:

"Everyone [sic] has Juliane Fitz Maurice as the daughter of Emeline
Longespée."

I know you like to whinge about people allegedly misquoting you, so
I'm sure you wouldn't want your own mistaken allegation about what you
said to stand.

"Not everyone" and "everyone" do not equate.

(snip of unloving smear)

Likewise, I'm about to post new evidence in this matter.  Like duh,
new evidence is important, "David."

I suggest you stick to the subject of the thread, and avoid the
personal polemics. That's what you expect from others, remember?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. Evidently it irks "David" (if he actually exists) that someone
should say something nice about me.  As "David" knows, I complement

Do you mean "compliment", or is this supposed to be a reference to the
tag-team antics you indulge in with some of the other trolls?

people all the time here on the newsgroup.  If "David" behaves, I'll
probably complement him, too.  I've noted it drives some people
absolutely nuts when someone says nice things about me.  I've never
quite figured that out.  That, and the lying.

P.P.S. Another misrepresentation that "David" told in his post is that
the identity of Juliane Fitz Maurice's mother has been available
"since the last century."  I assume he means about the year 2000
(truly an ancient date), which is approximately when I first published
my research findings about Juliane Fitz Maurice.  This is not exactly
"the last century."  

Erm, 2000 is "exactly" the last century. This current century
commenced on 1 January 2001. Not having much luck with dates lately,
are you?

So, we see that every "lie" you attribute to David is actually a fact,
whereas your own post contains a number of mistruths and/or errors.
Oops!

I look forward to the identification of Joan de Clare's ancestry.

Best wishes, Michael
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Spoiler - Umpteenth episode
    ... Well done Ruth! ... Anyone who tuned in for the first time after all the build up ... Sam is going to react. ... Unless she is planning on going home and telling David the whole sorry ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: How to _Spell_ Chromatic Scales
    ... that I said "screw you already David". ... > Your post should have illustrated the standard chromatic scale in the ... > that's standard or not. ... _did_ get it right the first time around, ...
    (alt.guitar.beginner)
  • Re: Medical Big Branes - MRSA
    ... TimV wrote in ... knh2m4pvnuoe8722kq1mh9u1go2euc8nnl@xxxxxxx, "David V. Loewe, Jr" ... the first time they put contact precautions into effect. ... What it will basically mean for David is that he'll get a private room ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: So far, no SAer has investigated the Qumran Sundial - but, this can change
    ... David, you are the one who accused someone else of being obsessive - and not ... for the first time, either. ... various obsessions have so far ended your marriage, ... Therefore politicians attack countries for local politics. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland map - Nova programme Tuesday evening
    ... >haven't you realised that it's no use to abuse me, ... >correct information of the past to be presented and accepted. ... Bobby and David B believes. ... it- the same is also true of at least some of your scholarly friends who do ...
    (sci.archaeology)