Re: Another C.P. Addition: Margaret Neville, wife of Sir William

On May 16, 1:39 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 16, 1:52 pm, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> < Actually, he did. "You have no idea what this do***ent was" is
> < indicating this precise flaw in your knowledge.  You haven't a clue,
> < yet you are willing to boldly draw conclusions based on someone else
> < saying they have seen it, but neither describing it nor saying what
> it
> < contained, only the conclusion she happened to draw from it.
> <<
> <  taf
>
> Actually I'm quite  familiar with Ermengarde,

I would call this a half-truth, except it is actually hovering
somewhere below 5%.  Who was she?  What are her qualifications?  Is
she a "trained historian and genealogist"?  You have seen her name on
some letters written to a non-peer-reviewed 19th century publication.
That is all. To claim that this represents a high degree of
'familiarity' is not just deceptive, it is delusionally absurd.


> Robert Glover, and the
> Harleian MS. collection.

Smoke and mirrors now? You know perfectly well I never said you didn't
know what the Harleian MS collection is. I know what the Library of
Congress is, but that doesn't mean I know what is in any specific
book.  The fact of the matter (and one need do nothing more than look
at your previous post for this to be patently obvious) is that you had
not the slightest idea what _this specific_ item in that collection is
until another poster told you, yet you did not let that stand in the
way of drawing a conclusion that this unknown manuscript 807 with
unknown information proved your point because someone of unknown name
and unknown qualifications said it did. As to Glover, now that someone
has told you he was the author of the unknown manuscript 807, you
offer this up as further evidence that you are 'in the know'?  Please.


> If taf is unfamiliar with them, I would understand that.

If Mr. Richardson chooses to make such silly attempts at sleight of
hand, it strongly suggests that he doesn't have the goods.  You may
recall that a few weeks ago he decried a poster sup****ting his
argument with non-medieval material, yet now Mr. Richardson is
sup****ting his with the writings of a 19th century pseudonymous
cypher, and by hinting that I am the one at fault for his failure to
sup****t his argument.

> At any event, it would be best if taf didn't assume all of us are as
> misinformed as he is.

Given that you YOURSELF posted a request for the information, it is
hardly an assumption to take your own request at face value, or are
you telling us that you cannot be trusted?  Which is it, that you were
ill informed, or that you were lying?


>  Psychologists call that "transference."

Since you are again offering me patronizing advice, I will offer you
some advice too. Given your behavior in this group, your la****ng out
at anyone who questions your conclusions, your passing snide insults,
your two-faced backstabbing, your double standards, and your seeming
God complex, I would suggest that the less you draw attention to the
study of abnormal psychology the better.


>   I say
> it's just  another one of taf's many red herrings.

In what universe is "you have insufficient evidence for your
conclusion" a red herring?  Oh, I forgot.  Just as in your universe
"truth" is equal to "whatever Douglas Richardson, trained historian,
genealogist, and infallible genius says it is", apparently "red
herring" is equal to "any criticism of the conclusions of Mr.
Richardson, no matter how valid the critique".  I guess that would
make sense, in a sick sort of way.

> taf seems to think being a historian or genealogist is sitting in your
> easy chair criticizing other people's work.  Right.

Mr. Richardson seems to think that being a historian or genealogist is
making wild guesses, then browbeating and insulting anyone who
disagrees with him.

taf

P.S. Note to the group jester - I didn't ask for this. I was
addressing the historical argument.  It was Mr. Richardson who decided
to attack the messenger. Are you now going to chastise him? or are you
just a pathetic partisan who has yet to make a contribution to this
group under any of your pseudonyms.