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

On May 16, 8:50 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 16, 4:00 pm, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> < 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.
>
> I haven't attacked anyone, taf.  The evidence in this case speaks for
> itself.

Yes, it does. ". . . it would be best if taf didn't assume all of us
are as misinformed as he is". Who is calling me misinformed?  Was that
your imaginary friend? Your other personality? Did you leave your
computer unattended and someone else typed those words? And who said,
"taf seems to think being a historian or genealogist is sitting in
your easy chair criticizing other people's work"? Who said that if it
wasn't you?

At least this answers one question I asked. Whether you are a liar.


> In any event,  please stay on topic.

Who first mentioned psychology, hypocrite?

>   And post your sources and your
> weblinks (if you have any).

Ah, yes. When he has no evidence to sup****t his position, it is the
fault of others for not having weblinks. When he demands that others
produce medieval do***ents, and the best he can do is a 19th century
gossip rag, it is the fault of the critics.

You know, it is not like the Harleian collection is closed to the
public.  If you were not so seft-satisfied, you could actually take
the steps necessary to demonstrate what sup****t this do***ent
provides, but you are content with (to borrow a phrase you have used)
sitting in your easy chair and browbeating and blustering, rather than
doing what it takes to prove your case.

taf