Re: Back to school
- From: "John H" <johnH4999@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:24:00 GMT
Well Peter,
Any newbies would do well to totally ignore your degrading, derogatory and
ill mannered posting to which I am responding.
In all the years I have been reading on this list, occasionally making a
posting,
no one has ever done other than provide me with a well mannered response,
albeit not always the response that I was looking for.
I have never heard any of the people you refer to claim they are
infalliable, whereas you seem to believe YOU ARE.
I dont always agree with them 100%, but that is life!
I have always found them very knowledgeable and willing to point me and
others in a direction
which either provides the answer I requested, or towards information that
assists me in my searching.
I see that it is you that has created the descent from a genealogical
discussion
into a mudslinging name calling group of postings of a very vehement level.
I think you need to take a good look at how you yourself tag and label
people without so much as a care!
Is your self esteem so low?
I consider (irrespective of the actual subject matter under discussion),
that you are a very rude and uncouth person
and I for one would be happy to see you missing from this list.
It is peculiar that ALL OTHERS are wrong and you are TOTALLY RIGHT.
Ego's .....well yours seems to be about as big as the Eiffel Tower,
perhaps you need to pick yourself up out of the gutter/mud and learn to
ascend to a more civilised level of discussion.
By all means argue your point with whomever you so choose, but please stop
calling anyone who disagrees
with you idiots or some other derogatory name, as it serves you ill.
I think it is perhaps time for all on this group to totally ignore your
postings and go to discussions with others,
who are less rude and uncouth.
It will be interesting to see what attack you now make on me for daring to
challenge your modus operandi.
John H
"Peter W. Pesterhaus III" <binky9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:285cfb19-6b9c-4f27-a312-3034cf10dc2e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is for the newbies:
When you post a query here, and you get a snotty response--they're not
trying to help you. They're trying to get you to hire them. Take it
from me--a PhD in history is far more qualified than any of these
jerks. These guys are "ambulance chasers." When they see a newbie
wandering in, they get out their knives and forks and stuff a napkin
under their chins. Everybody knows what they are. There's a reason
they want me to hire them--but you don't know what it is and I'm not
going to tell you.
This thread isn't about genealogical evidence--all of these people
know exactly what Elizabeth Rogers' "twelve pence" clause means.
MichaelAnne Guido knew what it meant. Theyt're trying to protect
their livelihood.
About these books:
The three most commonly used are:
Gary Boyd Roberts' "The Royal Descents Of 600 Immigrants" now in its
5th iteration (I own 4 of them) and
Douglas Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry" and "Magna Carta
Ancestry" (I own both).
Although he doesn't indicate it in his book, somehow Roberts' Col.
Thomas Ligon line went from a caveat of "probable" to no caveat of
all. An investigation shows there is no evidence linking Col. Thomas
Ligon to a specific Ligon family in England. There is a parish record
entry in Warwickshire showing that Thomas and Elizabeth (Pratt) Ligon
had a son named Thomas, and chronology doesn't rule put the
identification, but there's no real proof that Col. Thomas Ligon of
Henrico Co., VA is that person. Roberts loves publishing the
pedigrees of celebrities. Even though he hasn't proved his own Ligon
line, he's gone so far as to suggest he might be a descendant of
Edward III based on it.
As far as Roberts' Clarke line goes, Jeremy/Jeremiah Clarke was an
indentured servant. That doesn't mean he came from a poor family, but
he probably didn't get to Rhode Island under his own steam. And it
doesn't mean he's not a son of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke. I
don't know what source Douglas Richardson used to identify the
children of Jeremy and Frances (Latham) Clarke. He doesn't list a
will or any other record, but cites a compilation of biographies of
colonial and Revolutionary governors--I don't know if that source
cites an actual record or not. There was a John Clarke in the area
who seems rather well better known. If Jeremy Clarke had a son
Weston, that's an excellent indication that his mother may well have
been Mary (Weston) Clarke--but it isn't proof.
Apparently the Royal Bastsards had/have at least one member in on the
Jeremy Clarke line--but at one time they had a member in on the
Katherine (Dale) Carter line too--and she'd been on TV about it.
That's 300 bucks down the drain, huh?
It was not uncommon for colonists to have a "coat of arms." There's a
difference between Sir William Skipwith's display of arms at his tomb--
there were people who knew the family well, and knew of his
grandmother who died in 1550. But Maj. Edward Dale also had a coat of
arms--despite that, no one has ever identified his parents. And some
colonists invented their own.
If you read the responses here, you'll immediately realize it's all
about credibility. These guys want you to take what they say based on
their "reputations." An intelligent person will realize that they're
threatened. Some of them want you to believe they're more qualfiied
than a PhD who's spent their career studying some aspect of colonial
life. That's absurd. They're desperate.
Some of them have published a few articles in respected journals--but
so had MichaelAnne Guido. Those journals don't pay very well if at
all. They publish in them so they'll have a credential to show
prospective clients. That doesn't mean the articles are crap or the
people who write them aren't committed to their craft--but understand
the game. The game is called Status--and they play on the very human
desire for it. It's been that way since the dawn of time.
You've seen my bibliography. Take my advice--most of these books are
less than $30.00 and you can get them from amazon.com. Buy one--
especially the Sturtz and Salmon volumes--and read it. Print out this
thread, and re-read the comments. Then post your reaction here.
The threats about lineage societies and gatekeepers and journals are
hot air. Don't let these people shove you around. Since
"soc.genealogy.medieval" has degenerated into a puddle of piranhas,
don't hire them. Check the archives to see if anything worthwhile on
your families has been posted. But you don't have to play their game.
.
- Prev by Date: Andrew McInnes' false Graham ascent
- Next by Date: Re: Back to school
- Previous by thread: Andrew McInnes' false Graham ascent
- Next by thread: Re: Back to school
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
