Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 13.25

If we go to etimology again, it's originally collones,
palatal ll (lh in Portuguese) - cf. Colleoni.

Best, fa

PS: I recall a rather racy Italian comedy with Lando
Buzzanca on the Colleoni and some reincarnation of
them - not on the military, but on the sexual side -
in the 60s...

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
escreveu:
It's COJONES in both Spanish and English -- no
matter what errant
gibberish Peter Stewart, The "Defrocked Master Of
Languages", alleges.

What is the Portuguese again, Chico?

The Latin is TESTES.

Peter just continues to dig himself a deeper hole
and surely is in muck
up to his cojones by now.

Sad, Very Sad...

Britannicus Traductus Sum.

DSH







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

David Webb

Re: ``non-sequiter'' : non sequitur

Legg inn av David Webb » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 14.17

I wonder whether there isn't some structural
disharmony that makes some Latin terms and expressions
so hard to understand to English-speaking people. My
guess - just a guess - goes as follows: we have long
used a language full of nuances, hidden implications,
innuendos, perhaps. There is always a measure of
ambiguity in Latin languages, even in its everyday
usage, while English strives for clear-cut
definitions, black or white characterizations. This is
not our way.

Best, chico



I think this is wrong. The standard of Latin as understood by scholars in
England is no different from that in Portugal. We understand Latin grammar
very well - to the point where we try to squeeze English grammar into the
same format. Latin was until recently taught in all Roman Catholic schools -
such as the one I attended - and a good knowledge of Latin was required
before entrance to Oxford University. sequor is known as a "deponent" verb.

David Webb

Re: _Non Sequitur_

Legg inn av David Webb » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 14.18

No. As a deponent verb, sequi is passive in form, but active in meaning.
sequitur does not mean "it is being followed".



"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
""Sequor" primarily means "to follow", and "sequitur" is the third
person indicative active, present tense, meaning "he/she/it follows"."

Peter Stewart

Actually, Peter, _SEQUITUR_ is third person, indicative, PASSIVE,
present tense -- meaning [literally, among other meanings] "he/she/it is
[is being] followed."

So, NON SEQUITUR literally means -- "it [the logic] is NOT being
followed" -- but your original, correct, "it does not follow" parses
better.

Cheers And Aloha,

Spencer

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sorry Chico, it's you who need to do some checking.

Latin is a complex language, and of course words and phrases can be used
variously - that is why machines can't translate very well.

But it isn't Esperanto, and speaking Portuguese rather than English does
not give any advantage in understanding classical and medieval usages.

"Sequor" primarily means "to follow", and "sequitur" is the third person
indicative active, present tense, meaning "he/she/it follows".

"Non" negates the verb, but cannot literally change its subject from the
third person singular to "nothing".

I gave the literal meaning, "it does follow". There may be contexts
where you could render "non sequitur" as "nothing follows", but you
can't reasonably offer this as a definition of the term.

I suggest you equip yourself with a better work of reference - since you
read & speak French and this is a medieval forum, I would recommend
either Jan Frederik Niermeyer's _Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus_
(Leiden, New York & Cologne, 1993) or Albert Blaise's _Lexicon
latinitatis medii aevi_ (Turnhout, 1975).

Or you could always look up Du Cange, available on Gallica.

Peter Stewart



Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
Peter,

Do check your Latin, please. I first went to le père
des ânes, ;-)) Quicherat, 1869 edition, p. 1081.

Sequitur hunc annum pax. This year is followed by
peace.

Sequitur is rex qui... Remains to talk about the king
that...

Non sequitur, nothing remains, nothing to be said,
nothing to be debated.

I wonder whether there isn't some structural
disharmony that makes some Latin terms and expressions
so hard to understand to English-speaking people. My
guess - just a guess - goes as follows: we have long
used a language full of nuances, hidden implications,
innuendos, perhaps. There is always a measure of
ambiguity in Latin languages, even in its everyday
usage, while English strives for clear-cut
definitions, black or white characterizations. This is
not our way.

Best, chico

--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> escreveu:

Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:

The correct term is non sequitur, an idiomatic
expression from the verb sequor, to follow.

Sequitur

est... means, remains to [say, etc.]

Non sequitur, nothing follows.

I've no idea what misquotation or misspelling
prompted your remarks, but
"non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not
follow" and certainly
not "nothing follows".

Peter Stewart

David Webb

Re: _Non Sequitur_

Legg inn av David Webb » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 14.21

Question for extra credit: When someone says, "Marc parle francais"
why doesn't "francais" require a definite article, the way nouns
always do (as in "Le francais est une langue simple et clair.")

John

Am I getting confused when I think that should be "simple et claire"?

David Webb

Re: _Non Sequitur_

Legg inn av David Webb » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 14.26

Spencer, you are reversing yourself below. You previously thought sequi was
passive in meaning and that sequitur meant "it is being followed". Now you
have cottoned on to deponent verbs. Welcome to Latin Grammar 101.

"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Sequitur" is the third person singular INDICATIVE." [sic]

Peter Stewart
----------------------

Incomplete On Two Counts.

Ergo Indubitably Wrong And Misleading.

Of course it is INDICATIVE. It is certainly not IMPERATIVE or
SUBJUNCTIVE, so there is no need to write INDICATIVE in all caps.
Indeed that is simply a red herring -- an amusing one -- designed to
divert the reader.

But the verb also has a PASSIVE ending -- which, because the verb
_SEQUOR_ is deponent, is essentially translated into English in the
ACTIVE rather than the PASSIVE voice.

It is also PRESENT TENSE and that has been left out of the description
supra.

Specifying the TENSE is critical.

Now we finally have it right.

And yes, Virginia, METAPHORICAL meanings are indeed important and should
be considered in the scope of any COMPLETE, LOGICAL and SCHOLARLY
ANALYSIS.

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

David Webb

Re: OT - finis, back to the banu Qasi

Legg inn av David Webb » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 14.29

PS: These deponent verbs have an apparent active
meaning (stress apparent; the passive meaning is
clear, as I've said, in some constructions in my
language). But they are conjugated according to a
medio-passive ending system.



Actually I think you are wrong to compare with Portuguese constructions such
as se segue, which you say is medio passive. The deponent verbs have no
passive meaning. Take morior mori - these mean I die, to die, and it
doesn'tt really matter if some modern language can be dredged up that uses
an impersonal construction.

David Webb

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av David Webb » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 14.34

Further, as you restate and I emphasized before, METAPHORICAL MEANINGS
must be taken into account in this discussion.

DSH

Well the question is whether the metaphorical meaning was given to
superficialiter in the middle ages. A knowledge of Classical Latin cannot
tell you that. It may be that Peter Stewart is an expert on Mediaeval Latin
and knows for a fact that modern Romance languages' use of a cognate phrase
is a development that post-dates the Middle Ages or that even if early
Portuguese admitted this meaning, Mediaeval Latin still did not. This is a
point of scholarly research. The best refutatioin would be if someone could
give a 14th century example of superficialiter being used in the
metaphorical meaning - not a 21st century example of Brazilian Portuguese.
Peter Stewart also asserts that superficies means only the top surface. Once
again, knowledge of how words have varied subtly in meaning over centuries
is a point of scholarly research. I do not know if Peter Stewart has traced
the meaning of superficies throughout centuries and across the continent in
such a way as to be sure of the point he makes. but he might be right -
which casts doubt on other interpretations.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 14.44

Peter Stewart himself told me he is an Englishman.

He also told me he attended Oxford but dropped out and never graduated.

So, I guess he lied about THAT too.

Further, he tells me he fell off a motorcycle while drunk and banged his
head very badly while he was at Oxford since he was not wearing a
helmet.

He tells me he is still suffering severe neurological complications from
that accident.

He also claims his mother was a very close friend of the Queen Mother
and was with her when she died.

Is he lying about all that too?

Who knows?

If Peter is telling the truth I feel very sorry for him -- because his
neurological problems seem to be worsening.

If he is lying he should 'fess up and come clean.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

New Subject:

Yep, Peter is up to his cojones in the hole he continues to dig for
himself.

Sad.

No sensible person writes "COHONES" as Peter does.

The word is COJONES.

The OED reportedly has it as first appearing in English in 1932.

Or, in Latin, TESTES -- or in Peter's case TESTICULI -- the diminutive
of TESTES.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > No, actually Peter Stewart is an Englishman who lives in Australia.
|
| More false information being peddled by Spencer - I am NOT an
| Englishman.
|
| Peter Stewart

David Webb

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av David Webb » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 15.03

Palatal l's are frequently j in Spanish. Eg filius becomes hijo.



"Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
If we go to etimology again, it's originally collones,
palatal ll (lh in Portuguese) - cf. Colleoni.

Best, fa

PS: I recall a rather racy Italian comedy with Lando
Buzzanca on the Colleoni and some reincarnation of
them - not on the military, but on the sexual side -
in the 60s...

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]
escreveu:
It's COJONES in both Spanish and English -- no
matter what errant
gibberish Peter Stewart, The "Defrocked Master Of
Languages", alleges.

What is the Portuguese again, Chico?

The Latin is TESTES.

Peter just continues to dig himself a deeper hole
and surely is in muck
up to his cojones by now.

Sad, Very Sad...

Britannicus Traductus Sum.

DSH







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

David Webb

Re: ``non-sequiter'' : non sequitur

Legg inn av David Webb » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 15.08

In English this is not known as the "medio-passive construction". The
correct term is impersonal construction.


"Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
My fault, and I acknowledge it. Não se segue, and nada
se segue are nearly equivalent in Portuguese, but when
translated back into English the cease to be so.

Notice that we still have the medio-passive
construction: non sequitur, não se segue.

fa

--- John Townsend <[email protected]
escreveu:
I agree with Peter Stewart when he says:

"non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not
follow" and certainly
not "nothing follows".


John Townsend, B.A. Hons. (Latin)
Genealogist/Antiquarian Bookseller
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk









_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Cybernaut

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Cybernaut » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 16.10

"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If a monarchy is the most stable form of government, how come so
many
of
them have been overthrown/replaced?

Timescale...

--

Just the 20th century will do

No, it won't.

The 20th century is not typical of anything.

The idea of kingship emerged about fifteen hundred years ago in the West,
the nation state seems to be about 500 years old, before that there
wasn't
anything but kings...

--
Which worked fine for the societies then. How many of the world's 180+

countries are monarchies today, and how many of them are absolute?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Philadelphia Develops A John Kerry Cheesesteak Sandwich

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 16.12

"Raising the Steaks"

"The Associated Press reports a Philadelphia restaurant has introduced a
$100 cheesesteak sandwich:

"Served with a small bottle of champagne, Barclay Prime's cheesesteak is
made of sliced Kobe beef, melted Taleggio cheese, shaved truffles,
sauteed foie gras, caramelized onions and heirloom shaved tomatoes on a
homemade brioche roll brushed with truffle butter and squirted with
homemade mustard."

The standard $4 cheesesteak, available at hundreds of sandwich shops,
pizzerias and burger joints around the city, is made with thin-sliced
ribeye on an Italian roll with American or provolone cheese -- or Cheez
Whiz at Pat's King of Steaks, the South Philadelphia landmark that
claims to have invented the steak sandwich in 1930.

Finally, a cheesesteak John Kerry can appreciate!"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id= ... heesesteak

"Kerry was in South Philadelphia Monday, and he paid a visit to Pat's
Steaks, where he ordered a cheesesteak with Swiss cheese. That just
isn't done, explains the Washington Post: "Philly cheesesteaks come with
Cheez Whiz, or occasionally American or provolone." Craig LaBan, food
critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer, says of Swiss: "In Philadelphia,
that's an alternative lifestyle."

James Taranto
The WSJ
---------------

DSH

David Webb

Re: OT - finis, back to the banu Qasi

Legg inn av David Webb » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 16.36

Marcus latine loquor

Marcos é loquaz em latim

Our predicative construction é loquaz sort of has this
passive meaning.

fa

1) Marcus latine loquor: I don't know the meaning of this phrase/non-phrase.
As far as I know, loquor means "I speak" and loquitur means "he speaks".
2) I don't know what part of speech loquaz is in Portuguese. It looks like
an adjective meaning loquacious. Are you defiinitely asserting that loquaz
is a past participle in Portuguese? I would have thought not.
3) If loquaz is not a past participle, the phrase is not passive in form.
4) The phrase is not passive in meaning however its construction is parsed.
5) I think this email shows your Portuguese as well as your Latin grammar to
be shaky.

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 17.50

OK, that's it. In this case we have ll (palatal l) > j
(fricative > h aspirate.

--- David Webb <[email protected]>
escreveu:
Palatal l's are frequently j in Spanish. Eg filius
becomes hijo.



"Francisco Antonio Doria"
[email protected]> wrote in
message

news:[email protected]...

If we go to etimology again, it's originally
collones,
palatal ll (lh in Portuguese) - cf. Colleoni.

Best, fa

PS: I recall a rather racy Italian comedy with
Lando
Buzzanca on the Colleoni and some reincarnation of
them - not on the military, but on the sexual side
-
in the 60s...

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]
escreveu:
It's COJONES in both Spanish and English -- no
matter what errant
gibberish Peter Stewart, The "Defrocked Master
Of
Languages", alleges.

What is the Portuguese again, Chico?

The Latin is TESTES.

Peter just continues to dig himself a deeper
hole
and surely is in muck
up to his cojones by now.

Sad, Very Sad...

Britannicus Traductus Sum.

DSH









_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/









_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: OT - finis, back to the banu Qasi

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 17.54

In this case, please allow me, I think it's a matter
of opinion. We get some flavor of why a medio-passive
like construction is required here.

As I've said, it's a bit like:

Marcus latine loquor

Marcos é loquaz em latim

Our predicative construction é loquaz sort of has this
passive meaning.

fa

--- David Webb <[email protected]>
escreveu:
PS: These deponent verbs have an apparent active
meaning (stress apparent; the passive meaning is
clear, as I've said, in some constructions in my
language). But they are conjugated according to a
medio-passive ending system.



Actually I think you are wrong to compare with
Portuguese constructions such
as se segue, which you say is medio passive. The
deponent verbs have no
passive meaning. Take morior mori - these mean I
die, to die, and it
doesn'tt really matter if some modern language can
be dredged up that uses
an impersonal construction.








_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Gjest

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Gjest » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 20.12

In a message dated 10/10/2004 1:39:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

It is even found as "cohones" in Spain, a common Andalucian spelling
variant as far as I recall.

Even Chico wasn't silly enough to quibble over this.

Peter Stewart






OT comment.

The word in Spanish for the English word "pull" is usually spelled "jale",
but when I was in Puerto Rico they spelled it "hale", so the doors of many
retail establishments had my name on the handle.

Also. I think that the singular for cojones is cojone, not cojon.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 21.02

We note with extreme sadness that Peter Stewart is still lying about his
stay at Oxford University, his accident as reported to me previously,
his mother, the Queen Mother and sundry other matters -- including
_cojones_ and _testiculi_.

Yes, severe neurological complications indeed quite obviously ensued
from his unfortunate collision with that cobblestone -- coupled with
hysterical responses on USENET and gibberish posts of the sort Peter has
recently taken to inflicting on us.

His attacks on Francisco Antonio Doria have been particularly
ill-tempered, nasty and egregious.

Sad, Very Sad Indeed.

But Peter's Clownish Performances Are Rather Amusing, In A Sense...

One Must Always Look On The Bright Side.

He Seems To Want To Play POOR YORICK Here.

So Be It....

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

William Black

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av William Black » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 22.12

"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


The 20th century is not typical of anything.

The idea of kingship emerged about fifteen hundred years ago in the
West,
the nation state seems to be about 500 years old, before that there
wasn't
anything but kings...

--
Which worked fine for the societies then. How many of the world's 180+
countries are monarchies today, and how many of them are absolute?


Many monarchies were never 'absolute'. The English kings always had to

refer to some sort of assembly, if only for their election.

How many monarchies? It depends if there's a king in exile, as in Italy
and Greece, or one resident in the country but not reigning in any way,
such as in France, or no serious claimant, such as Russia.

They might just come back, and the republics of the twentieth century may
turn out to be a passing fad as the English and Dutch Republics were.

When looking at the ways nation states run themselves it always helps to
take the long view...

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

John A Rea

Re: _Non Sequitur_

Legg inn av John A Rea » 10. oktober 2004 kl. 22.14

David Webb wrote:
Question for extra credit: When someone says, "Marc parle francais"
why doesn't "francais" require a definite article, the way nouns
always do (as in "Le francais est une langue simple et clair.")

John


Am I getting confused when I think that should be "simple et claire"?


You are perfectly correct: 'claire' it should be. My French grammar
(and English) may be actually quite good: my typing is in the C-
category. Please correct typos I commit, before replying.

Jack

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 0.46

You comprrehension is appallingly poor, Spencer, like your manners.
Comments interspersed:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Peter Stewart himself told me he is an Englishman.

A lie - you may have misunderstood, but there is no excuse to claim that
I told you what I did not.

He also told me he attended Oxford but dropped out and never graduated.

Australians can be admitted to Oxford, Spencer, and can even win
prestigious scholarships there - as can some Americans.

I never told you I "dropped out", and the true circumstances (that you
had questioned) are actually rather different.

So, I guess he lied about THAT too.

No, you are lying.

Further, he tells me he fell off a motorcycle while drunk and banged his
head very badly while he was at Oxford since he was not wearing a
helmet.

Another lie - I was not druuk. To refresh your very poor memory, my
girlfirend was driving the vehicle and I fell off the back, hitting my
head on a cobblestone.

He tells me he is still suffering severe neurological complications from
that accident.

No he doesn't - and didn't - tell you this. Quite different, in fact: I
still suffer MINOR consequences from this accident, and have since
developed (probably independently, as experts advise) the extremely
painful condition of trigeminal neuralgia.

He also claims his mother was a very close friend of the Queen Mother
and was with her when she died.

No, read again Spencer - if you can do better at a second attempt you
will see that I told you only two people were with the Queen Mother when
she died, and neither of these was my mother who wassn't even in the
same country at the time, as I also told you.

Is he lying about all that too?

Who knows?

If Peter is telling the truth I feel very sorry for him -- because his
neurological problems seem to be worsening.

If he is lying he should 'fess up and come clean.

So Spencer has now added a moronic and petulant breach of confidnces HE
sought off-list.

Our correspondence stopped after he became hysterical at not getting a
response when he expected it (due to his own shennanigans with email
addresses). I have since heard that others in SGM had similar
experiences with him.

Sad is right - oitiful indeed.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 0.51

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 10/10/2004 1:39:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

It is even found as "cohones" in Spain, a common Andalucian spelling
variant as far as I recall.

Even Chico wasn't silly enough to quibble over this.

Peter Stewart






OT comment.

The word in Spanish for the English word "pull" is usually spelled "jale",
but when I was in Puerto Rico they spelled it "hale", so the doors of many
retail establishments had my name on the handle.

Also. I think that the singular for cojones is cojone, not cojon.

No, there is no final "e" on the singular.

It must have been gratifying to ahve your name all over town - I hope
they gave you the best seats in those restaurants.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 0.54

Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

Sad is right - oitiful indeed.

Well, oity about that typo - Spencer no doubt deserves a new word or two
to describe his psychopathology, but this should read "pitiful".

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 1.12

Hilarious!

Peter Stewart in FACT told me he is a cousin of the Queen Mother and the
Queen and a descendant of the Duke of Devonshire.

He is also a descendant of at least one Prime Minister according to his
OWN account.

There is nothing wrong with ANY of those.

Why does he run away from them?

Why he lies through his teeth about these assertions he has made to me
is a mystery to me.

Fear of losing his job?

Friends in Australia who will laugh at him?

Class Prejudice?

Pitiful!

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| For myself, I am an Australian, and a republican at that - not a
prince
| of the blood, and not a close relative of the Bowes-Lyon family.
Spencer
| is having a crazy spell.
|
| Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 1.13

Hilarious!

"Poor Yorick" Stewart is indeed in good form.

Translation:

"Maybe I was drunk at Oxford, when I fell off the motorcycle and banged
my head so severely on a cobblestone that I suffer the repercussions to
this day, but my GIRLFRIEND, the DRIVER, was sober.

ROTFL.

Irrelevant To Boot.

Virginia, Evelyn Waugh himself could not pen a more amusing self-satire
than our own Peter Stewart.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| ...However, I will grant you this: when I wrote before that I was not
drunk
| at the time of my accident in Oxford, I should more properly have said
I
| was not drunk in charge of a vehicle. I was no doubt tipsy, after
| dinner, but my girlfriend was absolutley [sic] sober.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 1.21

The only "loss of dignity" here, [how quaint], has been brought on by
Peter himself who has been hoist with his own petar -- after abusing
Chico.

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

Just like the impact with the cobblestone at Oxford.

Good Entertainment -- Even So.

Whatever -- Peter Should Stop Abusing People In These Quarters --
Especially Francisco Antonio Doria -- no matter HOW brain-damaged Peter
is.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...

| Peter Stewart wrote:
|
|
| > For many years I have suffered mildly from an acquired brain injury,
| > about which I have been quite open to SGM on a number of occasions.
|
| To be clear, I meant "an acquired brain impairment, from an injury".
I'm
| not sure how a person could have an injury other than by "acquiring"
it.
|
| I apologise to the newsgroup that this personal information has to be
| gone over, due to Spencer's failed attempt at revenge - maybe now a
bit
| of dignity can be restored.
|
| Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 2.41

Recte:

Hilarious!

"Poor Yorick" Stewart is indeed in good form.

Translation:

"Maybe I was drunk at Oxford, when I fell off the motorcycle and banged
my head so severely on a cobblestone that I suffer the repercussions to
this day, but my GIRLFRIEND, the DRIVER, was sober."

ROTFL.

Irrelevant To Boot.

Virginia, Evelyn Waugh himself could not pen a more amusing self-satire
than our own Peter Stewart.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| ...However, I will grant you this: when I wrote before that I was not
drunk
| at the time of my accident in Oxford, I should more properly have said
I
| was not drunk in charge of a vehicle. I was no doubt tipsy, after
| dinner, but my girlfriend was absolutley [sic] sober.

Leo van de Pas

coincidences with names was Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 3.01

I like Gordon Hale's story, it reminds me of a story I read many years ago.
Winston Churchill in his dotage was in Parliament and was boring every one
with a long story. It ended with him telling about a ship that had gone
down, the only thing floating on the ocean was a door with his initials on
it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi


[email protected] wrote:


In a message dated 10/10/2004 1:39:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

It is even found as "cohones" in Spain, a common Andalucian spelling
variant as far as I recall.

Even Chico wasn't silly enough to quibble over this.

Peter Stewart






OT comment.

The word in Spanish for the English word "pull" is usually spelled
"jale",
but when I was in Puerto Rico they spelled it "hale", so the doors of
many
retail establishments had my name on the handle.

Also. I think that the singular for cojones is cojone, not cojon.

No, there is no final "e" on the singular.

It must have been gratifying to ahve your name all over town - I hope
they gave you the best seats in those restaurants.

Peter Stewart



Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 5.29

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
We note with extreme sadness that Peter Stewart is still lying about his
stay at Oxford University, his accident as reported to me previously,
his mother, the Queen Mother and sundry other matters -- including
_cojones_ and _testiculi_.

The only thing "we" can possibly note is that you, Spencer, are behaving
in an unconscionable way even IF you were telling the truth, which you
are certainly not.

These tantrums & convulsions of yours are seen for exactly what they
are, a frantic attempt to get out of admitting error on a subject that
fatally compromises your pose of panjandrum authority about so much else
in medieval history and genealogy.

When you come to the end of your erratic life, will your last words
perhaps be "morior - I am being died", or will you by then have learned
to recognise a deponent verb as active in passive forms?

However, I will grant you this: when I wrote before that I was not drunk
at the time of my accident in Oxford, I should more properly have said I
was not drunk in charge of a vehicle. I was no doubt tipsy, after
dinner, but my girlfriend was absolutley sober. Spencer _may_ perhaps
have exaggerated a true memory of my account along these lines.

As for the rest, he knows very well that he has made wrong assumptions
and outright misrepresentations.

SGM readers can check for themselves that I have had NOTHING whatever to
say about "testiculi", and can find for themselves Spanish as well as
English (and American) writers correctly using "cohones" in that form.

Yes, severe neurological complications indeed quite obviously ensued
from his unfortunate collision with that cobblestone -- coupled with
hysterical responses on USENET and gibberish posts of the sort Peter has
recently taken to inflicting on us.

For many years I have suffered mildly from an acquired brain injury,
about which I have been quite open to SGM on a number of occasions. I
had to re-learn how to read as an adult, until the ability came back
more-or-less spontaneously, and occasionally I am still unable to
recognise words or get letters in the right sequence. People here can
judge for themselves how successfully or otherwise I deal with this
problem, but only I can tell if it is "severe" for me or not.

Hysteria and gibberish can also remain in the eye of the beholder, quite
happily from my point of view.

His attacks on Francisco Antonio Doria have been particularly
ill-tempered, nasty and egregious.

Chico had the good grace to shift the unpleasant & unavailing discussion
onto a more profitable and delightful footing, as he has done in such
circumstances before. He remains a perfect gentleman when others,
including myself, do not.

Sad, Very Sad Indeed.

But Peter's Clownish Performances Are Rather Amusing, In A Sense...

One Must Always Look On The Bright Side.

He Seems To Want To Play POOR YORICK Here.

As an unearthed skull? Or in life, wont to set the table on a roar? But
the laugh, Spencer, is not on me.

We all saw you go wrong, and ever since we have all seen you forfeiting
the last shreds of respect that anyone in the newsgroup held for your
opinions.

And still no acknowledgement of the simple fact that you tried to
correct someone on an elementary point of Latin you didn't have a clue
about.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 5.37

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

We note with extreme sadness that Peter Stewart is still lying about his
stay at Oxford University, his accident as reported to me previously,
his mother, the Queen Mother and sundry other matters

And by the way, the fact that only the queen herself and a
lady-in-waiting, that is her daughter and her niece, were with the Queen
Mother when she died is and was at the time a matter of public record.

So how could anyone be stupid enough to try telling another that he was
the son of either of these ladies unless he was so?

At no time have I dreamed of representing myself to anyone as a grandson
or great-nephew of Queen Elizabeth.

What happens in the mind of Spencer Hines when he hears anything about
royalty I can only imagine.

For myself, I am an Australian, and a republican at that - not a prince
of the blood, and not a close relative of the Bowes-Lyon family. Spencer
is having a crazy spell.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 5.44

Peter Stewart wrote:


For many years I have suffered mildly from an acquired brain injury,
about which I have been quite open to SGM on a number of occasions.

To be clear, I meant "an acquired brain impairment, from an injury". I'm
not sure how a person could have an injury other than by "acquiring" it.

I apologise to the newsgroup that this personal information has to be
gone over, due to Spencer's failed attempt at revenge - maybe now a bit
of dignity can be restored.

Peter Stewart

norenxaq

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av norenxaq » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 8.37

Peter Stewart wrote:

I apologise to the newsgroup that this personal information has to be
gone over, due to Spencer's failed attempt at revenge - maybe now a bit
of dignity can be restored.

Peter Stewart

has to?????


you could have chosen to ignore it

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 10.11

Spencer - you sound a MOST unpleasant sort of gnome. Why don't you get
back under your mossy rock and stop harrassing Peter? It was disgraceful of
you to broadcast what Peter must have told you in confidence. In any case
it is extremely rude of you to mention personal matters which have nothing
whatever to do with Peter's undoubted ability to get to the heart of a
knotty genealogical problem.
When you start contributing useful information to this newsgroup, rather
than snidey remarks, you may begin to claw back some respect.
Merilyn (we Aussies must stick together!)

-------Original Message-------

From: D. Spencer Hines
Date: 10/11/04 13:40:21
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

The only "loss of dignity" here, [how quaint], has been brought on by
Peter himself who has been hoist with his own petar -- after abusing
Chico.

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

Just like the impact with the cobblestone at Oxford.

Good Entertainment -- Even So.

Whatever -- Peter Should Stop Abusing People In These Quarters --
Especially Francisco Antonio Doria -- no matter HOW brain-damaged Peter
is.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...

| Peter Stewart wrote:
|
|
| > For many years I have suffered mildly from an acquired brain injury,
| > about which I have been quite open to SGM on a number of occasions.
|
| To be clear, I meant "an acquired brain impairment, from an injury".
I'm
| not sure how a person could have an injury other than by "acquiring"
it.
|
| I apologise to the newsgroup that this personal information has to be
| gone over, due to Spencer's failed attempt at revenge - maybe now a
bit
| of dignity can be restored.
|
| Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 10.30

Comments interspersed:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Hilarious!

Peter Stewart in FACT told me he is a cousin of the Queen Mother and the
Queen and a descendant of the Duke of Devonshire.

Spencer Hines in FACT asked me to work out how I was related to the
Queen Mother, pestering me about this a number of times, and I explained
that the closest link was through the Cavendish family from a duke of
Devonshire who was a common ancestor.

Note: that patently makes his previous claim, that I had told him or
implied I was either a grandson or great-nephew of the lady, impossible
and false.

He is also a descendant of at least one Prime Minister according to his
OWN account.

Three prime ministers from memory - but I haven't conducted an
exhaustive count.

There is nothing wrong with ANY of those.

Why does he run away from them?

Um - who said there was anything wrong with them? Republicans can have a
high regard for persons who differ from them, whether royal, noble or
common. And how am I supposed to be "running away" from my happily
acknowledged connections? Delusion has taken over and Spencer is ranting
quite incoherently now.

Why he lies through his teeth about these assertions he has made to me
is a mystery to me.

Fear of losing his job?

What on earth can this mean? Is there a job in Australia that depends
somehow on the good opinion of Spencer Hines? If so, I don't hold it or
care to apply.

Meanwhile my livelihood is not in any jeopardy from the ravings of a
notorious internet loon.

Lying in this thread, clearly, can only be established on one side -
unless Spencer now wishes unless all to know that he was stupid enough
to ignore the news resources at his disposal for checking and believed
my alleged account that I was a son of Queen Elizabeth II or her cousin,
despite and at the same time as my answering his questions to tell him
exactly how I was more distantly related to these people.

Friends in Australia who will laugh at him?

Class Prejudice?

Whose prejudice? I am not impressionable by social class - Australians
rarely are. My friends know enough about me to realise what is comical,
and what may be ridiculous for that matter, and this has nothing to do
with Spencer's foolish & wildly inaccurate remarks.

As to the poster disguised behind the label norenxaq (if I have read it
correctly), I am hardly going to keep quiet while entirely false claims
are made to the newsgroup about my personal life and circumstances.
Unlike people who won't reveal their names here, I have nothing to hide
but something to defend.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 10.33

Merilyn Pedrick wrote:

Spencer - you sound a MOST unpleasant sort of gnome. Why don't you get
back under your mossy rock and stop harrassing Peter? It was disgraceful of
you to broadcast what Peter must have told you in confidence. In any case
it is extremely rude of you to mention personal matters which have nothing
whatever to do with Peter's undoubted ability to get to the heart of a
knotty genealogical problem.
When you start contributing useful information to this newsgroup, rather
than snidey remarks, you may begin to claw back some respect.
Merilyn (we Aussies must stick together!)

Thank you Merilyn.

Spencer obviously doesn't value what is left of his reputation on SGM,
but it's notable that he isn't cross-posting this stuff & nonsense to
his audiences elsewhere, who would no doubt be interested to see how
crankily and feebly he defends himself from the consequences of his own
ignorance when called to account.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 14.31

Errant Twaddle.

I never said any such thing.

Peter is obviously suffering severe neurological problems again --
probably engendered by that drunken noodle-crash he took into the
cobblestone at Oxford -- when he was so stupid as not to wear a helmet
while riding a motorcycle.

Now, both his Memory and his Ratiocination are revealing signs of
rampant dysfunction.

Peter suffers from a severe case of:

Bent Noodle....

No wonder they sent him down from Oxford.

Sad But...

Great Entertainment!

Poor Yorick In Fine Form....

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| Note: that patently makes his previous claim, that I had told him or
| implied I was either a grandson or great-nephew of the
| lady, [the Queen Mother] impossible and false.

TOF

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av TOF » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 16.50

& if the monarchy/ aristocracy is so bad, how come so many colonials feel
the need to make up family trees proving they are descended from them? ;-)

"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If a monarchy is the most stable form of government, how come so
many
of
them have been overthrown/replaced?

Timescale...

--

Just the 20th century will do

No, it won't.

The 20th century is not typical of anything.

The idea of kingship emerged about fifteen hundred years ago in the West,
the nation state seems to be about 500 years old, before that there
wasn't
anything but kings...

--
Which worked fine for the societies then. How many of the world's 180+
countries are monarchies today, and how many of them are absolute?


Todd A. Farmerie

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 20.20

Gordon Banks wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 05:50, TOF wrote:

& if the monarchy/ aristocracy is so bad, how come so many colonials feel
the need to make up family trees proving they are descended from them? ;-)


It's a collecting disease. If I could collect information on the vast
bulk of my ancestors who were peasants, I would. It's not such a bad
form of the disease, as the collection can reside in a computer, rather
than taking up the whole house.

You haven't seen my house.

taf

Gordon Banks

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 22.00

On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 05:50, TOF wrote:
& if the monarchy/ aristocracy is so bad, how come so many colonials feel
the need to make up family trees proving they are descended from them? ;-)

It's a collecting disease. If I could collect information on the vast
bulk of my ancestors who were peasants, I would. It's not such a bad
form of the disease, as the collection can reside in a computer, rather
than taking up the whole house.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 22.16

| Note: that patently makes his previous claim, that I had told him or
| implied I was either a grandson or great-nephew of the
| lady, [the Queen Mother -- DSH] impossible and false."

Peter Stewart
----------------------------

Errant Twaddle.

Peter is lying.

I never said any such thing.

Peter is obviously suffering severe neurological problems again --
probably engendered by that drunken noodle-crash he took into the
cobblestone at Oxford -- when he was so stupid as not to wear a helmet
while riding a motorcycle.

Now, both his Memory and his Ratiocination are revealing signs of
rampant dysfunction and continuing deterioration.

Peter suffers from a severe case of:

Bent Noodle....

No wonder he was never able to finish his degree at Oxford.

Sad But...

Great Entertainment!

Poor Yorick In Fine Form....

DSH

Doug McDonald

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 23.01

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Gordon Banks wrote:

On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 05:50, TOF wrote:

& if the monarchy/ aristocracy is so bad, how come so many colonials
feel the need to make up family trees proving they are descended from
them? ;-)



It's a collecting disease. If I could collect information on the vast
bulk of my ancestors who were peasants, I would. It's not such a bad
form of the disease, as the collection can reside in a computer, rather
than taking up the whole house.


You haven't seen my house.

taf


Nor my desk!

Doug McDonald

Frank Bullen

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Frank Bullen » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 23.01

Do you not have to modify the question - to read

How many of the world's 180+ countries (that have ever been monarchie)s, are monarchies today, and how many of them are absolute?

Regards

Frank

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 23.09

Capital!

Thanks for posting this.

DSH

""Barrie J. Wright"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:016501c4aff8$0fca8fa0$7b360bd2@barriewr...

| As an Aussie who voted for Howard, I concur with the comments below.
| Regarding the Spaniard comparison, our Embassy in Djakarta was
actually
| bombed a week or so ago, but it only helped Howard.
|
| Because of our preferential voting system and compulsory voitng, the
direct
| vote for Howard is obscured.

| The primary vote was actually about 47-38%, a landslide in US terms..
| It is possible to be elected on our system with a minority primary
vote and
| it often happens -as also George Bush achieved in 2000.
| Anti-Howard types claimed Bush was not 'legitimate', but they would
have
| accepted a Latham win this time on just the same terms!
|
| Let's hope the Nader voters are more cluey about foreign affairs, and
drop
| him this time for Bush -he may need them.
|
| Barrie Wright
|
| South Australia
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| To: <[email protected]>
| Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 1:07 AM
| Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than
Wimpy
| Spaniards
|
|
| > "Australia Re-Elects Howard Prime Minister"
| >
| > By MIKE CORDER
| >
| > "SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Prime Minister John Howard scored a
convincing
| > victory in Australia's federal election Saturday, winning a historic
| > fourth term in a vote ensuring the staunch U.S. ally keeps its
troops in
| > Iraq. ******
| >
| > With more than 70 percent of votes tallied, Howard appeared likely
to
| > increase his government's majority in parliament - exceeding most
| > analysts' predictions that the result would be very tight.
| >
| > "My fellow Australians ... I am truly humbled by this extraordinary
| > expression of confidence in the leadership of this great nation by
the
| > coalition," Howard told cheering supporters of his conservative
alliance
| > in Sydney.
| >
| > "In accepting their charge to lead the nation I rededicate myself
and
| > all of my colleagues to the service of the Australian people."
| >
| > Labor Party leader Mark Latham earlier conceded defeat before
supporters
| > in western Sydney, saying he called Howard to congratulate him.
| >
| > "Tonight was not our night," Latham told the crowd.
| >
| > The election was widely seen abroad as the first referendum for the
| > three leaders who launched the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with
| > President Bush facing a ballot next month and British Prime Minister
| > Tony Blair probably facing voters next year.
| >
| > The Labor Party had vowed to bring the roughly 900 Australian troops
| > deployed in and around Iraq home by Christmas, while Howard insisted
| > they will stay until Iraqis ask them to leave. Australian troops
have
| > not suffered any casualties and none have combat roles.
| >
| > Australians have focused more on the economy, health and education
than
| > on Howard's unpopular decision to join the Bush-led coalition in
Iraq.
| > Howard sent 2,000 troops to Iraq last year, prompting accusations he
was
| > Bush's lackey.
| >
| > Latham argued that the Iraq invasion was a distraction from the
| > international fight against terrorism, and he wanted to focus
| > Australia's security policy closer to home in Southeast Asia.
| >
| > That was a clear nod to his country's fears of attacks after the
Oct.
| > 12, 2002, bombings on Bali Island that killed 202 people, many of
them
| > Australians, and the Sept. 9 bombing of the Australian Embassy that
| > killed nine people.
| >
| > With about 77 percent of votes counted, official figures showed
Howard's
| > coalition had 52.4 percent to Labor's 47.6 percent, giving the
| > conservatives a clear lead in the race for a majority in
parliament's
| > 150-seat lower house, where government is formed.
| >
| > "I think at this stage of the evening it's going to be almost
impossible
| > for Labor to win this election," Labor Sen. Robert Ray told Channel
Nine
| > television. "We are too far behind in too many seats at this stage
for
| > victory."
| >
| > The campaign also hinged on personalities, with three-term incumbent
| > Howard, 65, seen as a colorless but reliable steward of the economy,
and
| > Latham, 43, perceived as young and energetic but also inexperienced
and
| > sometimes undisciplined.
| >
| > Australian voters chose candidates for all 150 seats in the federal
| > parliament's lower house - the House of Representatives - and 40 of
the
| > 76 seats in the Senate. A total of 1,091 candidates were standing
for
| > the House of Representatives and 330 for the Senate.
| >
| > The country has 13 million registered voters.
| >
| > Howard voted Saturday at a school after taking a walk around Sydney
| > Harbor, where he asked passers-by not to use their votes to punish
his
| > conservative coalition for unpopular policies.
| >
| > "It's certainly not an occasion for anyone to think they can give us
a
| > protest kick and still re-elect us - if enough people do that we'll
| > lose," he said.
| >
| > At the polls, a man in line said to the prime minister: "Mr. Howard,
if
| > you win, I'm moving to Europe."
| >
| > And let's hope he does -- he can join some of our Left-Wing,
| > Pacifist-Appeasing Hollywood Crowd in Europe if George Bush wins his
| > race. All such Rampant Pogues should congregate in Spain, France
and
| > Germany. ---- DSH
| >
| > Another woman asked him when he was going to stop lying to the
| > Australian public. Howard ignored the man and said "thank you" to
the
| > woman.
| >
| > Well Done! ---- DSH
| >
| > John Atkins, 59, voting in Sydney, said he did not approve of
Latham's
| > plan to withdraw from Iraq, even though he initially opposed the
Iraq
| > deployment.
| >
| > "I was very concerned when the Labor Party said it would pull out
the
| > troops by Christmas," he said. "We should never have gone in, but
once
| > we had we need to stay."
| >
| > Latham shook hands with well-wishers as he entered his Sydney
polling
| > site.
| >
| > "We'll be seeking the support of the Australian people, particularly
for
| > a world-class health and education system, and taking the financial
| > pressure off families," he said.
| >
| > Howard's center-right government and the opposition both focused
their
| > campaigns on pledges to improve the education and health systems,
and
| > debated which party can best run the economy and maintain a boom
fueled
| > largely by rising property prices.
| >
| > Howard repeatedly warned voters a Latham government would likely
drive
| > up interest rates - a sensitive issue for millions of homeowners.
| >
| > Australia's economy has grown during every year of Howard's
| > administration has been in office. Unemployment is close to
all-time
| > lows and inflation is just 2 percent.
| >
| > Latham insisted he could fund his policies and keep interest rates
low
| > and the economy growing.
| >
| > Howard is in his ninth year in office and is expected to retire
before
| > serving out his full three-year term.
| >
| > Had Latham won, he would have become one of the country's youngest
| > leaders."
| > ----------------------
| >
| > Latham even LOOKS the part of the Pasty-Faced Wimp He IS: ---- DSH
| >
| >
http://apnews.myway.com/image/20041008/ ... XSYD105_20
| > 041008231522.html?date=20041009&docid=D85JUBV01
| > - ----------------------------
| >
| > DSH

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 23.12

"Three Cheers for Australia"

"On behalf of America, we'd like to thank our friends Down Under for
handing the pro-American Liberal government of John Howard a resounding
re-election victory. The Liberals beat the Labor Party, whose candidate
for prime minister, Mark Latham, had pledged to cut and run from Iraq.
Howard's victory is a defeat for al Qaeda, which recently bombed the
Australian Embassy in Jakarta, presumably in hope of influencing the
election a la Spain.

Australia is arguably America's greatest ally. It's the fourth biggest
coalition partner in Iraq (after the U.S., Britain and Missouri), and
Aussie troops -- unlike even the British -- fought alongside Americans
in Vietnam. To those of us who care about American alliances, the
Australian election results are heartening news indeed."

James Taranto
The WSJ
---------------

DSH

John Ravilious

Re: Possible Identification of Juliana, wife of Robert de Ch

Legg inn av John Ravilious » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 23.15

Monday, 11 October, 2004


Dear Cris, Rosie, Gordon, Merilyn, et al.,

One small piece to add to the puzzle.

Monasticon Anglicanum VI/1:428, Num. 1 is a confirmation by
Edward III of England of grants to the priory of Chaucomb. Included
in this recitation is a mention of cottages given by Hugh de
Chaucombe, which he had received in exchange for his land in Rotherby
from his brother William:

" ... et de tribus cotagiis que idem Hugo habuit in
excambium pro terra sua de Redreby, de Willielmo
fratre suo... "

While this does not answer the question concerning Matthew de
Chaucomb, it at least advances things slightly:

NN de Chaucombe
_________________I_____________________
I I
Hugh de Chaucombe = Amabil William de Chaucombe
of Chaucombe, co. Northants. I of Rotherby, co. Leics.
d. 13 Apr 1210 I
I
I
Robert de Chaucombe = Juliana
d. bef 13 Sept 1246 I
I
V


This also works with Robert de Chaucombe's association with a "
William de Chaucumbe " [evidently his uncle, or a 1st cousin] with
whom he was a witness to a grant of land in Rotherby by William de
Redrebi to Chaucombe priory, ca. 1200 (HKF II:75, citing Stenton,
Danelaw Ch. 305).

* This small find courtesy of Rosie's heads-up on the online
version on Mon.Angl. [thanks again, Rosie !]

Cheers,

John *



[email protected] (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<06cc01c4abee$8772f280$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
Dear Gordon and John

As Robert's father, Hugh, is also recorded holding 6 fees of the bishop of
Lincoln around 1201-12 [Red Book of the Exchequer, p.170], it's very likely
that Robert was a successor to the fee of Matthew de Chaucombe, but as you
say, with such scant information it is difficult to say how. The manors of
Chacombe and Great Dalby, Leics. were certainly held of the fee of the
bishop of Lincoln at Domesday and both held by a certain Godfrey. Other
lands Hugh held were in Merton, and Rotherby, Oxon., held of the earl of
Chester, but he is recorded owing debts to the Jews so Robert may have
inherited a reduced patrimony.

As to the identity of Juliana, it's possible she was a de Welle.

On 30 September 1231 a fine was made between Robert de Chacombe, and Ralph
Basset of Sapcote and his wife Millicent, daughter of Robert. The agreement
deals with the marriage portions of Millicent (2 carucates in Strubby,
Lincs, or 15 librates from Robert's manor of Chacombe, Northants., in
exchange) and her sister Mabel (Great Dalby, Leics). Details are given for
the division between Mabel and Millicent of Robert's lands at his death,
i.e. the manors of Chacombe and half the manor of Aspley (Aspley Heath,
Warks.) to go to Mabel; and the 2 carucates in Strubby and the manor of
Great Dalby to go to Millicent.


<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>


* John P. Ravilious

David Webb

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av David Webb » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 23.27

A misunderstanding is not a lie, by the way. As for Englishmen and
Australians, just remember how Robert Menzies called Australia "a British
country in the South Seas".



"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
You comprrehension is appallingly poor, Spencer, like your manners.
Comments interspersed:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Peter Stewart himself told me he is an Englishman.

A lie - you may have misunderstood, but there is no excuse to claim that
I told you what I did not.

He also told me he attended Oxford but dropped out and never graduated.

Australians can be admitted to Oxford, Spencer, and can even win
prestigious scholarships there - as can some Americans.

I never told you I "dropped out", and the true circumstances (that you
had questioned) are actually rather different.

So, I guess he lied about THAT too.

No, you are lying.

Further, he tells me he fell off a motorcycle while drunk and banged his
head very badly while he was at Oxford since he was not wearing a
helmet.

Another lie - I was not druuk. To refresh your very poor memory, my
girlfirend was driving the vehicle and I fell off the back, hitting my
head on a cobblestone.

He tells me he is still suffering severe neurological complications from
that accident.

No he doesn't - and didn't - tell you this. Quite different, in fact: I
still suffer MINOR consequences from this accident, and have since
developed (probably independently, as experts advise) the extremely
painful condition of trigeminal neuralgia.

He also claims his mother was a very close friend of the Queen Mother
and was with her when she died.

No, read again Spencer - if you can do better at a second attempt you
will see that I told you only two people were with the Queen Mother when
she died, and neither of these was my mother who wassn't even in the
same country at the time, as I also told you.

Is he lying about all that too?

Who knows?

If Peter is telling the truth I feel very sorry for him -- because his
neurological problems seem to be worsening.

If he is lying he should 'fess up and come clean.

So Spencer has now added a moronic and petulant breach of confidnces HE
sought off-list.

Our correspondence stopped after he became hysterical at not getting a
response when he expected it (due to his own shennanigans with email
addresses). I have since heard that others in SGM had similar
experiences with him.

Sad is right - oitiful indeed.

Peter Stewart

David Webb

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av David Webb » 11. oktober 2004 kl. 23.30

Three prime ministers from memory - but I haven't conducted an
exhaustive count.



I hope they were all Tories...

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 0.37

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Errant Twaddle.

I never said any such thing.

Peter is obviously suffering severe neurological problems again --
probably engendered by that drunken noodle-crash he took into the
cobblestone at Oxford -- when he was so stupid as not to wear a helmet
while riding a motorcycle.

Now, both his Memory and his Ratiocination are revealing signs of
rampant dysfunction.

Spencer, the archive is against you - just a day or two ago you claimed
that I had told you my mother was with the Queen Mother when she died.
This is entirely false, and as I have demonstrated it could only make
you into an utterly idiotic dupe if true. The press and countless news
websites would have told you (and you were intensely interested) that
only her daughter and niece were with her at the time. I had already
computed a far more distant relationship than grandson or great-nephew
at your demand, which you patently remembered as it involved a common
descent from a duke of Devonshire, that you recited here, and NOT from
an earl of Strathmore. Ergo, you lied.

Can't you give up even when shown in cold light of verifiable fact to be
romancing?

Peter suffers from a severe case of:

Bent Noodle....

No wonder they sent him down from Oxford.

For the record, I wasn't ever "sent down" from Oxford, in either of the
two periods I spent there - Spencer having obviously chosen to ignore
the second time, that on his insistence I told him about and that by
omission he has deliberately falsified.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 0.49

David Webb wrote:

A misunderstanding is not a lie, by the way. As for Englishmen and
Australians, just remember how Robert Menzies called Australia "a British
country in the South Seas".

I acknowledged the possibility of misunderstanding on this point, but
the falsehood was in Spencer's reporting and insisting on something he
didn't know. I have since reviewed the correspondence and can confirm
that I flatly told him I was Australian. And an "Englishman" is not the
same as a British subject from the Antipodes - wasn't so, indeed, when
Menzies spoke.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 0.50

David Webb wrote:

Three prime ministers from memory - but I haven't conducted an
exhaustive count.




I hope they were all Tories...

Whigs.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 0.56

Hilarious!

Leo speaks for ALL Australian voters.

How Quaint!

Cheers,

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000601c4b001$3ae5a180$c3b4fea9@email...

| Don't think Australians [sic] voters had the USA in mind......
| Best wishes
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia

D. Spencer Hines

Re: September 10th Man

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 1.04

"Sept. 10 Man"

"The New York Times magazine carries a potentially devastating profile
of John Kerry:

When I asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or
politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment.

""It accelerated --" He paused. "I mean, it didn't change me much at
all.

It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the
things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as
transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency
that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to
deal with it.""

And what would those things be? This takes us back to the concept of
terrorism as law-enforcement operation:

"When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again,
he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview [than President Bush].
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the
focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said.

"As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end
prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're
going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the
rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally,
it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the
fabric of your life."

Eugene Volokh calmly dismantles Kerry's argument:

"What remarkable analogies Kerry started with: prostitution and illegal
gambling. The way law enforcement has dealt with prostitution and
illegal gambling is by occasionally trying to shut down the most visible
and obvious instances, tolerating what is likely millions of violations
of the law per year, de jure legalizing many sorts of gambling, and de
jure legalizing one sort of prostitution in Nevada, and de facto
legalizing many sorts of prostitution almost everywhere; as best I can
tell, "escort services" are very rarely prosecuted, to the point that
they are listed in the Yellow Pages.

These are examples of practical surrender, or at least a cease-fire
punctuated by occasional but largely half-hearted and ineffectual
sorties. It's true that illegal gambling and prostitution aren't
"threatening the fabric of [American] life," but that's because they
never threatened it that much in the first place."

And James Lileks is outraged:

A nuisance? . . . Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a
nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or
Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's
war.

But that's not the key phrase. This matters: "We have to get back to
the place we were."

But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we [were]
losing. When we were there we died.

"We have to get back to the place we were." We have to get back to
9/10? "We have to get back to the place we were." So we can go through
it all again? "We have to get back to the place we were." And forget
all we've learned and done? "We have to get back to the place we were."
No. I don't want to go back there. Planes into towers. That changed
the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where
such things are unimaginable. Where our nightmares are their dreams.

"We have to get back to the place we were."

No. We have to go the place where they are.""
--------------------------------------

James Taranto
The WSJ
---------------

Bingo!

DSH

Frank Bullen

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Frank Bullen » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 1.53

Hi!

Happens all over the place. In 1931, the French put up a plaque at the Castle of Falaise listing 315 knights "who had accompanied William the Conqueror in his invasion of England" - or word to that effect. When SOG researchers investigated, they found absolutely no evidence of validity whatsoever for 296 of the 315 people listed.

Isn't it the same with the "Mayflower"?

Regards

Frank


TOF wrote ....

<& if the monarchy/ aristocracy is so bad, how come so many colonials feel
<the need to make up family trees proving they are descended from them? ;-)

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: The British/English Constitution - unroyal ancestors ;-)

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 2.16

Well, I have all the papers on my line from a 19th
century canon in the Brazilian hinterland who had a
common-law marriage to a former African slave. She was
quite educated, btw, as they had lots of books in
their household according to their estate, and she
herself taught her children how to read and write.
Royal lines here, only if she was descended from
African chieftains, a fact which I unfortunately
cannot verify...

fa

--- Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
escreveu:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Gordon Banks wrote:

On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 05:50, TOF wrote:

& if the monarchy/ aristocracy is so bad, how
come so many colonials
feel the need to make up family trees proving
they are descended from
them? ;-)



It's a collecting disease. If I could collect
information on the vast
bulk of my ancestors who were peasants, I would.
It's not such a bad
form of the disease, as the collection can reside
in a computer, rather
than taking up the whole house.


You haven't seen my house.

taf


Nor my desk!

Doug McDonald







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Thur

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Thur » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 2.17

"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"EDEB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: You don't actually have a Written Constitution per se -- and
you need
: one.

Why not write us one? I'm sure it'd come in useful.

Good idea, but I think it only fair a briton writes it?

I shall get on with it right away....

Cheers
Martin

In a way our constitution is written.
Choose a subject that is defined in the USA Constitution and you
will find that it is defined some way in law and the precedents set
by judgements on the subject in the UK.
Do we have a system that a modern democratic system requires
and it's people deserve - no.
Has the USA system anything to offer us?
Freedom of Information perhaps.
Thur

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 3.19

This blivet speaks for itself and clearly is not subject to proof.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

| Don't think Australians [sic] voters had the USA in mind......
| Best wishes
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia

Bronwen Edwards

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 4.18

First, if you think the war has anything to do with spreading
democracy, you are simply believing the propaganda. If the US was
really trying to spread democracy, truth, justice, Superman, etc. to
perceived undemocratic countries, it would have started with its own
puppets like Pinochet and the Shah. Any child knows hypocrisy when
confronted with it.
Second, the propaganda about Iraq before 1990 leaves out or lies about
several important points: elections were held, women did not have to
abide by religious strictures and had more freedom than women in any
other Muslim country, the genocide practiced by Hussein was not
against "his own people", it was against the Kurds whose original
nation was sliced up into Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Further, the
chemicals etc. that he used had been sold to him by the US. That's why
this administration thought it knew what he had. Needless to say, this
is not a defense of Hussein, but let's tell the truth.
Third, the stated purpose of George W's invasion of Iraq was to "fight
terrorism", specifically to fight the forces that caused 9-11. There
was no contact between the government of Iraq and Al Quaeda; in fact,
Hussein refused to give them support. They disliked him because his
government was too secular.
Fourth, it seems like all the right wingers, like yourselves, can
really do is use name-calling, ridicule, and indulge in
self-congratulatory sniggering like little kids. Grow up.



"David Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
For countries like Australia and Britain, there is an argument that,
whatever the merits of the Iraq war, it is important to maintain the
strategic relationship with America. Australia, next to Indonesia and the
other unstable nations, probably does well to keep up its relationship with
the US. But Spencer Hines is wrong when he assumes that only left-wingers
oppose the war. The war itself - as pointed out by Peter Hitchens in the
UK - is essentially left-wing, as it is based on the idea that all nations
are equally suited to democracy. Genuine right-wing philosophy does not
assume that all cultures are equal, or that all nations are adaptable to
democracy, and this is being proved now in Iraq. I don't think the US needs
to worry about how many allies it has when it intervenes abroad - a great
power has to be prepared to act alone - and there was a good argument that
Saddam's survival after the 1991 Gulf War was unsustainable, as the world
had to maintain sanctions on the country indefinitely. So for these reasons
I don't regret the Iraq war as such, and I don't think Western nations
should fall out over the bombing of third world countries that we care
little about. But there are constitutional issues surrounding the deliberate
falsification of intelligence in order to justify the war in terms other
than those I have set out above, and, even worse, the badly named USA
PATRIOT Act, which reduces American liberty. It is no good George Bush
saying (ludicrously incorrectly) "they attack us because they don't like our
freedom", if he then introduces legislation to take away America's freedoms.
The correct way to deal with terrorists is NOT TO LET THEM INTO AMERICA IN
THE FIRST PLACE. However, George Bush is pro-immigration and refuses to
close off the Mexican border. He favours a mass amnesty. He wants to veto
the legislation now going through congress that would make it harder for
illegal immigrants to get driving licences. What happens in Iraq and
Afghanistan is an irrelevance to the US as long as Iraqis and Afghans are
not permitted to enter the US except on business (and then pursued and
deported if they skip their visas). There shouldn't be any Arabs in America,
because America was founded as an extension of Europe. Great conservatives -
no wilting left-wing wallflowers - such as Patrick J. Buchanan and Sam
Francis have opposed the war. In the end whether the Iraqis have their human
rights protected and whether they flourish as a nation is neither here nor
there to patriots in Western nations. We need to pursue our own national
interests, not the "human rights of the world".



"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Indeed They Are -- Stalwarts, In The Main.

Although They Have Their Leftover Left-Wing Loons Too.

DSH

[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| In a message dated 10/9/2004 4:24:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
| [email protected] writes:
|
| Latham even LOOKS the part of the Pasty-Faced Wimp He IS: ---- DSH
|
|
| Medieval genealogy it ain't, but thanks for it Hines. I have always
| thought the Aussies were the closest thing to Yanks there was in
| the world. Good people.
|
| Gordon Hale
| Grand Prairie, Texas

Kelly Graham

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Kelly Graham » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 4.20

----- Original Message -----

Do you not have to modify the question - to read

How many of the world's 180+ countries (that have ever been monarchie)s, are
monarchies today, and how many of them are absolute?

Regards

Frank

_____________________________

This is getting (more) off-topic, but that's not unusual...

As of World War 1, is Eurupe, I can this of only ONE monarchy that was
"Absolute" in theory and practice: Romanoff Russia! The Habsburg Empire
may also have been so "in theory". But, the Duma of the Russias was
notoriously weak. I am not sure how absolute Ottoman rule was by the 20th
Century.

And, the Japanese Emporer was a god until after World War 2! But,
then, how much power did their god's representatives (aka Cabinet
Ministers) yield?

Kelly Paul Graham

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 4.51

To refresh Spencer's astonishingly short memory, here is the relevant
lie in his post of two days ago:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

<snip>

He also claims his mother was a very close friend of the Queen Mother
and was with her when she died.

Is he lying about all that too?

Since I never told him any such thing, and have demonstrated that he
remembers this from his own subsequent account of what I did actually
tell him about a common descent from a duke of Devonshire (obviating any
closer relationship that MUST have existed or have been absurdly
claimed, going by public knowledge, IF Spencer were telling the truth)
it is clear that Spencer hopes to bamboozle people by inane repetition
of his falsehood.

It won't work, of course. SGM readers are well aware of his follies.

They can see how he gradually drops lie after lie, but oddly sticks to
this most preposterous one. All of a piece with his lack of judgment in
other instances, and for that matter with his cranky, indiscriminate
belittling over years of people who come here honestly seeking
information rather than posing, like Spencer himself, as experts on the
back of clearly second-hand study of Latin sources in translation.

By all means keep coming back for more, Spencer - several people have
told me how much they are enjoying this unravelling of your projected
self-image, and you haven't laid a glove on me.

Here's another deponent verb to be going on with, Spencer: mentiris -
you are lying. As we know, you think this literally means "you are being
lied", but then we all know that you don't know what you're talking about.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: OT beating wrong drums? Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 4.55

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 10/11/2004 10:11:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

James Taranto was quoted, was he misquoted? I thought Missouri was a river,
or one of the states of the USA or even a battleship----but an American
ally? Or has Missouri cut its ties with the USA?




Naw, Leo, we in the South of the U.S. tried that once back in 1861 and the
damn Yankees got mad as hell, and come down and whupped us good. Can't get
out, no matter what.

I wondered about that Missouri myself but feared asking.

Didn't John Kerry make a point in debate that Missouri alone had a
number of service personnel in Iraq that would place it third after the
USA and Great Britain & ahead of any other natioal forces in the coalition?

Peter Stewart

Barrie J. Wright

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av Barrie J. Wright » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 5.05

As an Aussie who voted for Howard, I concur with the comments below.
Regarding the Spaniard comparison, our Embassy in Djakarta was actually
bombed a week or so ago, but it only helped Howard.

Because of our preferential voting system and compulsory voitng, the direct
vote for Howard is obscured.
The primary vote was actually about 47-38%, a landslide in US terms..
It is possible to be elected on our system with a minority primary vote and
it
often happens -as also George Bush achieved in 2000.
Anti-Howard types claimed Bush was not 'legitimate', but they would have
accepted a Latham win this time on just the same terms!

Let's hope the Nader voters are more cluey about foreign affairs, and drop
him this time for Bush -he may need them.

Barrie Wright

South Australia




----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than Wimpy
Spaniards


"Australia Re-Elects Howard Prime Minister"

By MIKE CORDER

"SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Prime Minister John Howard scored a convincing
victory in Australia's federal election Saturday, winning a historic
fourth term in a vote ensuring the staunch U.S. ally keeps its troops in
Iraq. ******

With more than 70 percent of votes tallied, Howard appeared likely to
increase his government's majority in parliament - exceeding most
analysts' predictions that the result would be very tight.

"My fellow Australians ... I am truly humbled by this extraordinary
expression of confidence in the leadership of this great nation by the
coalition," Howard told cheering supporters of his conservative alliance
in Sydney.

"In accepting their charge to lead the nation I rededicate myself and
all of my colleagues to the service of the Australian people."

Labor Party leader Mark Latham earlier conceded defeat before supporters
in western Sydney, saying he called Howard to congratulate him.

"Tonight was not our night," Latham told the crowd.

The election was widely seen abroad as the first referendum for the
three leaders who launched the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with
President Bush facing a ballot next month and British Prime Minister
Tony Blair probably facing voters next year.

The Labor Party had vowed to bring the roughly 900 Australian troops
deployed in and around Iraq home by Christmas, while Howard insisted
they will stay until Iraqis ask them to leave. Australian troops have
not suffered any casualties and none have combat roles.

Australians have focused more on the economy, health and education than
on Howard's unpopular decision to join the Bush-led coalition in Iraq.
Howard sent 2,000 troops to Iraq last year, prompting accusations he was
Bush's lackey.

Latham argued that the Iraq invasion was a distraction from the
international fight against terrorism, and he wanted to focus
Australia's security policy closer to home in Southeast Asia.

That was a clear nod to his country's fears of attacks after the Oct.
12, 2002, bombings on Bali Island that killed 202 people, many of them
Australians, and the Sept. 9 bombing of the Australian Embassy that
killed nine people.

With about 77 percent of votes counted, official figures showed Howard's
coalition had 52.4 percent to Labor's 47.6 percent, giving the
conservatives a clear lead in the race for a majority in parliament's
150-seat lower house, where government is formed.

"I think at this stage of the evening it's going to be almost impossible
for Labor to win this election," Labor Sen. Robert Ray told Channel Nine
television. "We are too far behind in too many seats at this stage for
victory."

The campaign also hinged on personalities, with three-term incumbent
Howard, 65, seen as a colorless but reliable steward of the economy, and
Latham, 43, perceived as young and energetic but also inexperienced and
sometimes undisciplined.

Australian voters chose candidates for all 150 seats in the federal
parliament's lower house - the House of Representatives - and 40 of the
76 seats in the Senate. A total of 1,091 candidates were standing for
the House of Representatives and 330 for the Senate.

The country has 13 million registered voters.

Howard voted Saturday at a school after taking a walk around Sydney
Harbor, where he asked passers-by not to use their votes to punish his
conservative coalition for unpopular policies.

"It's certainly not an occasion for anyone to think they can give us a
protest kick and still re-elect us - if enough people do that we'll
lose," he said.

At the polls, a man in line said to the prime minister: "Mr. Howard, if
you win, I'm moving to Europe."

And let's hope he does -- he can join some of our Left-Wing,
Pacifist-Appeasing Hollywood Crowd in Europe if George Bush wins his
race. All such Rampant Pogues should congregate in Spain, France and
Germany. ---- DSH

Another woman asked him when he was going to stop lying to the
Australian public. Howard ignored the man and said "thank you" to the
woman.

Well Done! ---- DSH

John Atkins, 59, voting in Sydney, said he did not approve of Latham's
plan to withdraw from Iraq, even though he initially opposed the Iraq
deployment.

"I was very concerned when the Labor Party said it would pull out the
troops by Christmas," he said. "We should never have gone in, but once
we had we need to stay."

Latham shook hands with well-wishers as he entered his Sydney polling
site.

"We'll be seeking the support of the Australian people, particularly for
a world-class health and education system, and taking the financial
pressure off families," he said.

Howard's center-right government and the opposition both focused their
campaigns on pledges to improve the education and health systems, and
debated which party can best run the economy and maintain a boom fueled
largely by rising property prices.

Howard repeatedly warned voters a Latham government would likely drive
up interest rates - a sensitive issue for millions of homeowners.

Australia's economy has grown during every year of Howard's
administration has been in office. Unemployment is close to all-time
lows and inflation is just 2 percent.

Latham insisted he could fund his policies and keep interest rates low
and the economy growing.

Howard is in his ninth year in office and is expected to retire before
serving out his full three-year term.

Had Latham won, he would have become one of the country's youngest
leaders."
----------------------

Latham even LOOKS the part of the Pasty-Faced Wimp He IS: ---- DSH

http://apnews.myway.com/image/20041008/ ... XSYD105_20
041008231522.html?date=20041009&docid=D85JUBV01
- ----------------------------

DSH

______________________________

Leo van de Pas

OT beating wrong drums? Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To B

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 6.11

I believe the Australian election was very much focussed on internal
matters, John Howard's understandable error of involving Australia in Iraq
played only a very minor role. The economy was heavily played upon (Labor's
record of increasing interests) as well as the inexperience of Mark Latham
(continually displaying a learner's plate in his name).
As far as Iraq is concerned, we are only midstream and changing horses
midstream is not a wise thing to do.

James Taranto was quoted, was he misquoted? I thought Missouri was a river,
or one of the states of the USA or even a battleship----but an American
ally? Or has Missouri cut its ties with the USA?

Don't think Australians voters had the USA in mind......
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than Wimpy
Spaniards


"Three Cheers for Australia"

"On behalf of America, we'd like to thank our friends Down Under for
handing the pro-American Liberal government of John Howard a resounding
re-election victory. The Liberals beat the Labor Party, whose candidate
for prime minister, Mark Latham, had pledged to cut and run from Iraq.
Howard's victory is a defeat for al Qaeda, which recently bombed the
Australian Embassy in Jakarta, presumably in hope of influencing the
election a la Spain.

Australia is arguably America's greatest ally. It's the fourth biggest
coalition partner in Iraq (after the U.S., Britain and Missouri), and
Aussie troops -- unlike even the British -- fought alongside Americans
in Vietnam. To those of us who care about American alliances, the
Australian election results are heartening news indeed."

James Taranto
The WSJ
---------------

DSH



Gjest

Re: OT beating wrong drums? Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove

Legg inn av Gjest » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 6.27

In a message dated 10/11/2004 10:11:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

James Taranto was quoted, was he misquoted? I thought Missouri was a river,
or one of the states of the USA or even a battleship----but an American
ally? Or has Missouri cut its ties with the USA?




Naw, Leo, we in the South of the U.S. tried that once back in 1861 and the
damn Yankees got mad as hell, and come down and whupped us good. Can't get
out, no matter what.

I wondered about that Missouri myself but feared asking.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Gjest

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av Gjest » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 6.31

In a message dated 10/11/2004 10:25:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

the genocide practiced by Hussein was not
against "his own people", it was against the Kurds whose original
nation was sliced up into Turkey, Iran and Iraq.



Like they say, if you are gonna say, get it right. Old Saddam killed a
bunch of Shites down in the south marshes too, I seem to have read.

Yeah, perhaps there were not WMDs, but so what. A cruel, dictator was
gotten rid of, and that was good, and it has made the price of oil go up, so even
I don't like everything about the Iraq war.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

James

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av James » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 6.56

Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...


Spencer obviously doesn't value what is left of his reputation on SGM,

<snip>

Peter Stewart


Well, to be honest, I think that Master Hines is doing precisely what
he needs to maintain his reputation. He is, after all, the newsgroup
idiot, providing vast entertainment (but no edification) to the
lurking masses. As a paid-up member of those masses I can say with
confidence that Master Hines is preserving his reputation in exemplary
fashion. It's been a load of giggles. And it's even free.

It's somewhat a shame that he is preserving his reputation at your
expense, but I suspect that you are intellectually well equipped to
deal with people like him. A bit like shooting fish in a barrel
really.

James

Leo van de Pas

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 8.01

You only needed to read the papers, follow TV adds etc. I do not think there
was one advertisement that was all about Iraq......... who said that I spoke
for all Australians?
Not me...........do not read between the lines what is not there. Many
Australians, on both sides dislike Australia being involved in Iraq. Even
the United Nations called the USA involvement "illegal".

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than Wimpy
Spaniards


Hilarious!

Leo speaks for ALL Australian voters.

How Quaint!

Cheers,

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000601c4b001$3ae5a180$c3b4fea9@email...

| Don't think Australians [sic] voters had the USA in mind......
| Best wishes
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia



David Webb

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av David Webb » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 9.00

"Bronwen Edwards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
First, if you think the war has anything to do with spreading
democracy, you are simply believing the propaganda. If the US was
really trying to spread democracy, truth, justice, Superman, etc. to
perceived undemocratic countries, it would have started with its own
puppets like Pinochet and the Shah. Any child knows hypocrisy when
confronted with it.

Pinochet was wonderful. How dare you badmouth him? He was the saviour of
Chile.

Second, the propaganda about Iraq before 1990 leaves out or lies about
several important points: elections were held, women did not have to
abide by religious strictures and had more freedom than women in any
other Muslim country,

Sounds great! So Saddam was actually quite cuddly really?

the genocide practiced by Hussein was not
against "his own people", it was against the Kurds whose original
nation was sliced up into Turkey, Iran and Iraq.

Not against his own people? Well, that's OK then...

Further, the
chemicals etc. that he used had been sold to him by the US. That's why
this administration thought it knew what he had. Needless to say, this
is not a defense of Hussein, but let's tell the truth.

You are clearly an apologist for a brutal dictator.

Third, the stated purpose of George W's invasion of Iraq was to "fight
terrorism", specifically to fight the forces that caused 9-11. There
was no contact between the government of Iraq and Al Quaeda; in fact,
Hussein refused to give them support.

Of course I know there was not connection between Iraq and 9/11. I am not a
US soccer mom, you know...

They disliked him because his
government was too secular.

Ridiculous!

Fourth, it seems like all the right wingers, like yourselves, can
really do is use name-calling, ridicule, and indulge in
self-congratulatory sniggering like little kids. Grow up.



"David Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
For countries like Australia and Britain, there is an argument that,
whatever the merits of the Iraq war, it is important to maintain the
strategic relationship with America. Australia, next to Indonesia and
the
other unstable nations, probably does well to keep up its relationship
with
the US. But Spencer Hines is wrong when he assumes that only
left-wingers
oppose the war. The war itself - as pointed out by Peter Hitchens in the
UK - is essentially left-wing, as it is based on the idea that all
nations
are equally suited to democracy. Genuine right-wing philosophy does not
assume that all cultures are equal, or that all nations are adaptable to
democracy, and this is being proved now in Iraq. I don't think the US
needs
to worry about how many allies it has when it intervenes abroad - a
great
power has to be prepared to act alone - and there was a good argument
that
Saddam's survival after the 1991 Gulf War was unsustainable, as the
world
had to maintain sanctions on the country indefinitely. So for these
reasons
I don't regret the Iraq war as such, and I don't think Western nations
should fall out over the bombing of third world countries that we care
little about. But there are constitutional issues surrounding the
deliberate
falsification of intelligence in order to justify the war in terms other
than those I have set out above, and, even worse, the badly named USA
PATRIOT Act, which reduces American liberty. It is no good George Bush
saying (ludicrously incorrectly) "they attack us because they don't like
our
freedom", if he then introduces legislation to take away America's
freedoms.
The correct way to deal with terrorists is NOT TO LET THEM INTO AMERICA
IN
THE FIRST PLACE. However, George Bush is pro-immigration and refuses to
close off the Mexican border. He favours a mass amnesty. He wants to
veto
the legislation now going through congress that would make it harder for
illegal immigrants to get driving licences. What happens in Iraq and
Afghanistan is an irrelevance to the US as long as Iraqis and Afghans
are
not permitted to enter the US except on business (and then pursued and
deported if they skip their visas). There shouldn't be any Arabs in
America,
because America was founded as an extension of Europe. Great
conservatives -
no wilting left-wing wallflowers - such as Patrick J. Buchanan and Sam
Francis have opposed the war. In the end whether the Iraqis have their
human
rights protected and whether they flourish as a nation is neither here
nor
there to patriots in Western nations. We need to pursue our own national
interests, not the "human rights of the world".



"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Indeed They Are -- Stalwarts, In The Main.

Although They Have Their Leftover Left-Wing Loons Too.

DSH

[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| In a message dated 10/9/2004 4:24:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
| [email protected] writes:
|
| Latham even LOOKS the part of the Pasty-Faced Wimp He IS: ---- DSH
|
|
| Medieval genealogy it ain't, but thanks for it Hines. I have always
| thought the Aussies were the closest thing to Yanks there was in
| the world. Good people.
|
| Gordon Hale
| Grand Prairie, Texas

James Kemp

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av James Kemp » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 9.21

Someone known as Thur scribed the following at 00:17:59 on Tue, 12 Oct
2004, allegedly:

Has the USA system anything to offer us?
Freedom of Information perhaps.

We've got that. The FOI Act is already partly in force making all public
bodies publish material and have a publication scheme on their website.
If you take a good look at Government websites you'll find a whole load
of material on them that wasn't available before the FOI Act was passed.

Also from 1 Jan 2005 the rest of the provisions of the FOI Act come into
force. Basically it means that anyone can ask (although it must be in
writing) for any information that is held and it must be supplied within
a defined timescale (15 working days IIRC).

There are exemptions to cover data protection (so you can't ask about
information that would be covered under the Data Protection Act -
although you can still get data about yourself under the DPA);
commercial sensitivity & national security.

For most Departments these won't apply and so you will have to get the
answers. I also expect that the courts will blow a hole in the
commercial sensitivity of many issues since we're talking about the
management of public funds and the efficiency of public service,
especially in a climate of 100,000 civil service job cuts (which is
approx 20% of the civil service).

--
James Kemp
Sergeant, Colonel John Fox's Regiment of Foote
http://www.johnfox.org.uk/

Leo van de Pas

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 10.19

I think I can rephrase this, I think most Australians did not allow the USA
or El Qaeda influence their voting. You would have to have been in Australia
to realise this, the advertisements of both sides gave little mention of
either if at all. It definitely was not an endorsement of the USA invading
Iraq.

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than Wimpy
Spaniards


This blivet speaks for itself and clearly is not subject to proof.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

| Don't think Australians [sic] voters had the USA in mind......
| Best wishes
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia


Bronwen Edwards

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 10.45

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
A cruel, dictator was
gotten rid of, and that was good,

So the US should continue sacrificing its youth (and older reservists)
to just go around the world, capture cruel dictators and "liberate"
their people to death? Does this include the cruel dictators put into
power and supported by the US? What about the democratically elected
leaders who were assassinated with the help of the US in order to put
a cruel dictator in power (as in Chile)? What the US cares about is
whether or not the leaders of resource-rich or strategically located
nations are "friendly" to US business interests. I am no fan of Saddam
but I knew about his gassing of the Kurds at the time it happened. If
I knew it, then the administration that was then friendly enough with
Saddam to be selling him the weapons he used against the Kurds,
Shiites, etc. certainly knew it, too. Where was their desire to
"liberate" the Kurds? Where was their mission to "democratize" Iraq
then?

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 10.53

James wrote:
Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...



Spencer obviously doesn't value what is left of his reputation on SGM,


snip

Peter Stewart



Well, to be honest, I think that Master Hines is doing precisely what
he needs to maintain his reputation. He is, after all, the newsgroup
idiot, providing vast entertainment (but no edification) to the
lurking masses. As a paid-up member of those masses I can say with
confidence that Master Hines is preserving his reputation in exemplary
fashion. It's been a load of giggles. And it's even free.

It's somewhat a shame that he is preserving his reputation at your
expense, but I suspect that you are intellectually well equipped to
deal with people like him. A bit like shooting fish in a barrel
really.

To give Spencer his due, he can sometimes be deadly accurate and funny
on purpose. And he sometimes chooses targets that deserve his scorn.

An enthusiast doesn't need to know any Latin, or at least not much, to
make a useful contribution to medieval genealogy - a lot can be deduced
from a very basic understanding of some sources. Everyone makes
mistakes, in grammar and vocabulary, even in his or her native tongue.

What invariably gets my dander up on SGM is any post that pretends to
knowledge or authority the writer does not possess, and especially the
refusal to admit error when someone has been shown to be wrong.

I certainly don't claim to be a "master of languages", and like Stewart
Baldwin I am quite happy to say I would like to be, and try to become,
more proficient at reading other than in English - and even there too.

Peter Stewart

Jon Meltzer

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Jon Meltzer » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 14.25

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:53:32 GMT, Peter Stewart <[email protected]>
wrote:


To give Spencer his due, he can sometimes be deadly accurate and funny
on purpose.

He has a good library, and sometimes knows how to correctly interpret
what he reads. But the man is incapable of original thought.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jacques Derrida Is Dead, But His Baneful Ideas Live On -

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 15.09

Jacques Derrida's ideas have also penetrated this newsgroup as a baneful
influence.

DSH
-------------------

"The Meaninglessness of Meaning"

"Jacques Derrida is dead, but his baneful ideas live on."

BY ROGER KIMBALL
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The WSJ

"It's not every French intellectual whose death is commemorated by an
announcement from the office of Jacques Chirac, the French president.
But Jacques Derrida, who died Friday at age 74, was not just any French
intellectual. His work, as Mr. Chirac's office noted, was "read,
discussed, and taught around the world."

Whether Mr. Derrida was also "one of the major figures in the
intellectual life of our time," as Mr. Chirac's office asserted, is a
point that has been fiercely contested ever since Mr. Derrida burst onto
the intellectual scene in the mid-1960s.

Mr. Derrida (the name is pronounced deh-ree-DAH) was without doubt one
of the most famous intellectuals of the past 40 years. His celebrity
rivaled that of Jean-Paul Sartre. As the founder, honorary CEO and
chief publicist for an abstruse philosophical doctrine he called
"deconstruction," Mr. Derrida was celebrated and vilified in about equal
measure. Academics on the lookout for a trendy intellectual and moral
high-explosive tended to love Mr. Derrida. The rest of us felt . . .
otherwise.

What is deconstruction? Mr. Derrida would never say. It was a question
certain to spark his contempt and ire. He denied that deconstruction
could be meaningfully defined. I think he was right about that, though
not necessarily for the reasons he believed.

But even if deconstruction cannot be defined, it can be described. For
one thing, deconstruction comes with a lifetime guarantee to render
discussion of any subject completely unintelligible. It does this by
linguistic subterfuge. One of the central slogans of deconstruction is
il n'y a pas de hors-texte, i.e., "there is nothing outside the text."
(It sounds better in French.) In other words, deconstruction is an
updated version of nominalism, the view that the meanings of words are
completely arbitrary and that, at bottom, reality is unknowable.

Of course, if you put it as baldly as that, people will just laugh and
ignore you. But if you dress up the idea in a forbidding vocabulary,
full of neologisms and recondite references to philosophy, then you may
have a prescription for academic stardom.

Stock in deconstruction has sagged a bit in recent years. There are
basically two reasons for this. The first has to do with the late Paul
de Man, the Belgian-born Yale professor of comparative literature.

In addition to being one of the most prominent practitioners of
deconstruction, Mr. de Man -- as was revealed in the late 1980s -- was
an enthusiastic contributor to Nazi newspapers during World War II.

That discovery, and above all the flood of obscurantist mendacity
disgorged by the deconstructionist brotherhood -- not least by Mr.
Derrida, who was himself Jewish -- to exonerate Mr. de Man, cast a
permanent shadow over deconstruction's status as a supposed instrument
of intellectual liberation.

The second reason that deconstruction has lost some sheen is simply
that, like any academic fashion, deconstruction's methods and
vocabulary, once so novel and forbidding, have gradually become part of
the common coin of academic discourse, and thus less trendy.

It is important to recognize, however, that this very process of
assimilation has assured the continuing influence of deconstruction.

Once at home mostly in philosophy and literature departments, the
nihilistic tenets of deconstruction have cropped up further and further
afield: in departments of history, sociology, political science and
architecture; in law schools and --God help us -- business schools.

Deconstructive themes and presuppositions have increasingly become part
of the general intellectual atmosphere: absorbed to such an extent that
they float almost unnoticed, part of the ambient spiritual pollution of
our time. Who can forget the politician who, accused of wrongdoing,
said in his defense that "it all depends on what the meaning of the word
'is' is"? ******

Although the language of deconstruction is forbidding, the appeal of the
doctrine is not hard to understand. It is the appeal of all
intellectual radicalism.

Because deconstruction operates by subversion, its evasions are at the
same time an attack: an attack on the cogency of language and the moral
and intellectual claims that language has codified in tradition. The
subversive element inherent in the deconstructive enterprise is another
reason that it has exercised such a mesmerizing spell on intellectuals.

Deconstruction promises its adherents not only an emancipation from the
responsibilities of truth but also the prospect of engaging in a species
of radical activism.

Indeed. That's the sort of thing that attracts Radical-Chic Parlor
Socialists. ---- DSH

A blow against the legitimacy of language is at the same time a blow
against the legitimacy of the tradition in which language lives and has
meaning. By undercutting the idea of truth, the decontructionist also
undercuts the idea of value, including established social, moral, and
political values.

There is a lot to be said for the old adage _de mortuis nil nisi bonum_.
Jacques Derrida is dead. Let us not speak ill of him. But his ideas
are still very much alive. They deserve unstinting criticism from
anyone who cares about the moral fabric of intellectual life."

"Mr. Kimball, managing editor of The New Criterion, is author of "The
Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art" (Encounter
Books)."
------------------------------

DSH

Gjest

Re: Scope of the GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest

Legg inn av Gjest » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 16.07

Could we please confine discussion on this site to medieval genealogy? There
are other sites available for those who want to discuss the United States
constitution, Australian voting patterns, Iraq under the Saddam regime - or merely
to engage in mutual abuse.
btw, thanks to those many subscribers who have helped me generously in the
past
MM

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jacques Derrida Is Dead, But His Baneful Ideas Live On -

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 17.34

Jacques Derrida's ideas have also penetrated this newsgroup, and many
others, as baneful influences.

Many People THINK they are educated and have learned how to RATIOCINATE
clearly and cogently -- but they have NOT.

So, unknowingly, they simply practice a debased form of Intellectual
Masturbation, leavened with Extreme Cynicism and Rampant Relativism.

'Nuff Said.

DSH
-------------------

"The Meaninglessness of Meaning"

"Jacques Derrida is dead, but his baneful ideas live on."

BY ROGER KIMBALL
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The WSJ

"It's not every French intellectual whose death is commemorated by an
announcement from the office of Jacques Chirac, the French president.
But Jacques Derrida, who died Friday at age 74, was not just any French
intellectual. His work, as Mr. Chirac's office noted, was "read,
discussed, and taught around the world."

Whether Mr. Derrida was also "one of the major figures in the
intellectual life of our time," as Mr. Chirac's office asserted, is a
point that has been fiercely contested ever since Mr. Derrida burst onto
the intellectual scene in the mid-1960s.

Mr. Derrida (the name is pronounced deh-ree-DAH) was without doubt one
of the most famous intellectuals of the past 40 years. His celebrity
rivaled that of Jean-Paul Sartre. As the founder, honorary CEO and
chief publicist for an abstruse philosophical doctrine he called
"deconstruction," Mr. Derrida was celebrated and vilified in about equal
measure. Academics on the lookout for a trendy intellectual and moral
high-explosive tended to love Mr. Derrida. The rest of us felt . . .
otherwise.

What is deconstruction? Mr. Derrida would never say. It was a question
certain to spark his contempt and ire. He denied that deconstruction
could be meaningfully defined. I think he was right about that, though
not necessarily for the reasons he believed.

But even if deconstruction cannot be defined, it can be described. For
one thing, deconstruction comes with a lifetime guarantee to render
discussion of any subject completely unintelligible. It does this by
linguistic subterfuge. One of the central slogans of deconstruction is
il n'y a pas de hors-texte, i.e., "there is nothing outside the text."
(It sounds better in French.) In other words, deconstruction is an
updated version of nominalism, the view that the meanings of words are
completely arbitrary and that, at bottom, reality is unknowable.

Of course, if you put it as baldly as that, people will just laugh and
ignore you. But if you dress up the idea in a forbidding vocabulary,
full of neologisms and recondite references to philosophy, then you may
have a prescription for academic stardom.

Stock in deconstruction has sagged a bit in recent years. There are
basically two reasons for this. The first has to do with the late Paul
de Man, the Belgian-born Yale professor of comparative literature.

In addition to being one of the most prominent practitioners of
deconstruction, Mr. de Man -- as was revealed in the late 1980s -- was
an enthusiastic contributor to Nazi newspapers during World War II.

That discovery, and above all the flood of obscurantist mendacity
disgorged by the deconstructionist brotherhood -- not least by Mr.
Derrida, who was himself Jewish -- to exonerate Mr. de Man, cast a
permanent shadow over deconstruction's status as a supposed instrument
of intellectual liberation.

The second reason that deconstruction has lost some sheen is simply
that, like any academic fashion, deconstruction's methods and
vocabulary, once so novel and forbidding, have gradually become part of
the common coin of academic discourse, and thus less trendy.

It is important to recognize, however, that this very process of
assimilation has assured the continuing influence of deconstruction.

Once at home mostly in philosophy and literature departments, the
nihilistic tenets of deconstruction have cropped up further and further
afield: in departments of history, sociology, political science and
architecture; in law schools and --God help us -- business schools.

Deconstructive themes and presuppositions have increasingly become part
of the general intellectual atmosphere: absorbed to such an extent that
they float almost unnoticed, part of the ambient spiritual pollution of
our time. Who can forget the politician who, accused of wrongdoing,
said in his defense that "it all depends on what the meaning of the word
'is' is"? ******

Although the language of deconstruction is forbidding, the appeal of the
doctrine is not hard to understand. It is the appeal of all
intellectual radicalism.

Because deconstruction operates by subversion, its evasions are at the
same time an attack: an attack on the cogency of language and the moral
and intellectual claims that language has codified in tradition. The
subversive element inherent in the deconstructive enterprise is another
reason that it has exercised such a mesmerizing spell on intellectuals.

Deconstruction promises its adherents not only an emancipation from the
responsibilities of truth but also the prospect of engaging in a species
of radical activism.

Indeed. That's the sort of thing that attracts Radical-Chic Parlor
Socialists. ---- DSH

A blow against the legitimacy of language is at the same time a blow
against the legitimacy of the tradition in which language lives and has
meaning. By undercutting the idea of truth, the decontructionist also
undercuts the idea of value, including established social, moral, and
political values.

There is a lot to be said for the old adage _de mortuis nil nisi bonum_.
Jacques Derrida is dead. Let us not speak ill of him. But his ideas
are still very much alive. They deserve unstinting criticism from
anyone who cares about the moral fabric of intellectual life."

"Mr. Kimball, managing editor of The New Criterion, is author of "The
Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art" (Encounter
Books)."
------------------------------

DSH

Bernard Schulmann

Scots line to Sweden

Legg inn av Bernard Schulmann » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 20.43

I thought people might find this line interesting. It is one of a number lines of Scots that moved to Sweden between 1550 and 1700

Some Swedish Descendants of Robert II of Scotland


1 Robert II of Scotland 1315 - 1390
+Elizabeth Mure, of Rowallan - 1355

2Robert III John Stewart 1357 - 1406
... +Annabella Drummond 1350 - 1401

...... 3 Mary Stewart 1385 - 1458
............ +George Douglas 1376 - 1402

.......... 4 Elizabeth Douglas
................ +Alexander Forbes

.............. 5 James Forbes - 1460
.................... +Egidia Keith

.................. 6 Duncan Forbes of Corsindae 1444 -
........................ +Christina Mercer 1449 -

..................... 7 James Forbes of Corsindae
............................ +Helen Lundy

......................... 8 Matthew Forbes
................................ +Margaret Penters

............................. 9 Ernald Forbes - 1605
................................... +Carin Mattsdotter

........ 10 Arvid Forbus 1598 - 1665
........ +Margareta Boije af Genas

................. 11 Sofia Juliana Arvidsdotter FORBUS 1649 - 1701
........................ +Axel Julius de la Gardei 1637 - 1710

....................... 12 Adam Carl de la Gardei 1665 - 1721
....................... +Anna Juliana Horn af Kanckas

........................ 13 Ebba Margret de la Gardei 1698 -
........................ +Fredrik Magnus von Stenbock 1696 - 1745

....................... 14 Carl Magnus von Stenbock 1725 -
....................... +Anna Magdalena Helena von Blomeaus 1723 -

........................ 15 Magnus Joachim von Stenbock 1757 - 1784
........................ +Wilhelmina Helene Elisabeth von Tiesenhausen 1757 - 1809

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: Scots line to Sweden

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 21.23

One of the several Magnus de la Gardie is the chief
character in M. R. James' horror story _Count Magnus_.


fa

--- Bernard Schulmann <[email protected]> escreveu:
I thought people might find this line interesting.
It is one of a number lines of Scots that moved to
Sweden between 1550 and 1700

Some Swedish Descendants of Robert II of Scotland


1 Robert II of Scotland 1315 - 1390
+Elizabeth Mure, of Rowallan - 1355

2Robert III John Stewart 1357 - 1406
.. +Annabella Drummond 1350 - 1401

..... 3 Mary Stewart 1385 - 1458
........... +George Douglas 1376 - 1402

......... 4 Elizabeth Douglas
............... +Alexander Forbes

............. 5 James Forbes - 1460
................... +Egidia Keith

................. 6 Duncan Forbes of Corsindae
1444 -
....................... +Christina Mercer 1449 -

.................... 7 James Forbes of Corsindae
........................... +Helen Lundy

........................ 8 Matthew Forbes
............................... +Margaret Penters

............................ 9 Ernald Forbes -
1605
.................................. +Carin
Mattsdotter

....... 10 Arvid Forbus 1598 - 1665
....... +Margareta Boije af Genas

................ 11 Sofia Juliana Arvidsdotter
FORBUS 1649 - 1701
....................... +Axel Julius de la Gardei
1637 - 1710

...................... 12 Adam Carl de la Gardei
1665 - 1721
...................... +Anna Juliana Horn af
Kanckas

....................... 13 Ebba Margret de la
Gardei 1698 -
....................... +Fredrik Magnus von
Stenbock 1696 - 1745

...................... 14 Carl Magnus von Stenbock
1725 -
...................... +Anna Magdalena Helena von
Blomeaus 1723 -

....................... 15 Magnus Joachim von
Stenbock 1757 - 1784
....................... +Wilhelmina Helene
Elisabeth von Tiesenhausen 1757 - 1809








_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: Scots line to Sweden

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 12. oktober 2004 kl. 23.00

It was first published in a collection of short
stories named _Ghost Stories of an Antiquary_.

best, chico

--- Bernard Schulmann <[email protected]> escreveu:
Yes, I am aware of that and have been trying to find
a copy of the book
in a local library.
Bernard

Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:

One of the several Magnus de la Gardie is the chief
character in M. R. James' horror story _Count
Magnus_.


fa

--- Bernard Schulmann <[email protected]> escreveu:



I thought people might find this line interesting.

It is one of a number lines of Scots that moved to
Sweden between 1550 and 1700

Some Swedish Descendants of Robert II of Scotland


1 Robert II of Scotland 1315 - 1390
+Elizabeth Mure, of Rowallan - 1355

2Robert III John Stewart 1357 - 1406
.. +Annabella Drummond 1350 - 1401

..... 3 Mary Stewart 1385 - 1458
........... +George Douglas 1376 - 1402

......... 4 Elizabeth Douglas
............... +Alexander Forbes

............. 5 James Forbes - 1460
................... +Egidia Keith

................. 6 Duncan Forbes of Corsindae
1444 -
....................... +Christina Mercer 1449 -

.................... 7 James Forbes of Corsindae

........................... +Helen Lundy

........................ 8 Matthew Forbes
............................... +Margaret Penters


............................ 9 Ernald Forbes -
1605
.................................. +Carin
Mattsdotter

....... 10 Arvid Forbus 1598 - 1665
....... +Margareta Boije af Genas

................ 11 Sofia Juliana Arvidsdotter
FORBUS 1649 - 1701
....................... +Axel Julius de la Gardei
1637 - 1710

...................... 12 Adam Carl de la Gardei
1665 - 1721
...................... +Anna Juliana Horn af
Kanckas

....................... 13 Ebba Margret de la
Gardei 1698 -
....................... +Fredrik Magnus von
Stenbock 1696 - 1745

...................... 14 Carl Magnus von
Stenbock
1725 -
...................... +Anna Magdalena Helena von
Blomeaus 1723 -

....................... 15 Magnus Joachim von
Stenbock 1757 - 1784
....................... +Wilhelmina Helene
Elisabeth von Tiesenhausen 1757 - 1809











_______________________________________________________

Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/









_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Martin Reboul

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Martin Reboul » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 4.34

"James Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Someone known as Thur scribed the following at 00:17:59 on Tue, 12 Oct
2004, allegedly:

Has the USA system anything to offer us?
Freedom of Information perhaps.

We've got that. The FOI Act is already partly in force making all public
bodies publish material and have a publication scheme on their website.
If you take a good look at Government websites you'll find a whole load
of material on them that wasn't available before the FOI Act was passed.

Also from 1 Jan 2005 the rest of the provisions of the FOI Act come into
force. Basically it means that anyone can ask (although it must be in
writing) for any information that is held and it must be supplied within
a defined timescale (15 working days IIRC).

Enough time for them to black out all the good bits!

There are exemptions to cover data protection (so you can't ask about
information that would be covered under the Data Protection Act -
although you can still get data about yourself under the DPA);
commercial sensitivity & national security.

For most Departments these won't apply and so you will have to get the
answers. I also expect that the courts will blow a hole in the
commercial sensitivity of many issues since we're talking about the
management of public funds and the efficiency of public service,
especially in a climate of 100,000 civil service job cuts (which is
approx 20% of the civil service).

There are a few things I'd rather like to see, such as the full Jack the Ripper
files and a certain incident that occured in Rendlesham Forest a few years ago.
Anyone else have any ideas?
Cheers
Martin

Peter Stewart

Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 5.40

Jon Meltzer wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:53:32 GMT, Peter Stewart <[email protected]
wrote:



To give Spencer his due, he can sometimes be deadly accurate and funny
on purpose.


He has a good library, and sometimes knows how to correctly interpret
what he reads. But the man is incapable of original thought.

I see what you mean, Jon.

It quite confounds rational explanation that he posted the following:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

<snip>

_Au contraire_, Peter Stewart posted:

"The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing."

Peter Stewart

This was not in any way contrary to the quotations that had preceeded
it, and in any case I can't imagine how Spencer thinks a minor point of
self-deprecation on my part about style can add an iota of substance to
his yet unstated case about the viewing of Edward II's corpse.

Perhaps his library doesn't contain anythng to help him on this latest
venture into nonsense.

And he probably won't put up or shut up until he is given a clear
indication that enough sensible people on SGM don't require any more of
his blather for their amusement.

Peter Stewart

Bronwen Edwards

Re: OT - finis, back to the banu Qasi

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 7.42

"David Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
is parsed.
5) I think this email shows your Portuguese as well as your Latin grammar to
be shaky.

David, is this a genetic trait - your intellectual self-imolation
evidenced by attacking the best warriors on their own ground? This is
unbelievable.

James Kemp

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av James Kemp » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 8.35

Someone known as Martin Reboul scribed the following at 02:34:32 on Wed,
13 Oct 2004, allegedly:
"James Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Someone known as Thur scribed the following at 00:17:59 on Tue, 12 Oct
2004, allegedly:

Has the USA system anything to offer us?
Freedom of Information perhaps.

Also from 1 Jan 2005 the rest of the provisions of the FOI Act come into
force. Basically it means that anyone can ask (although it must be in
writing) for any information that is held and it must be supplied within
a defined timescale (15 working days IIRC).

Enough time for them to black out all the good bits!

Well you aren't allowed to do that, but I expect several shredders will
be worn out between now and 1 Jan '05 as people destroy material so that
they don't have to disclose it.

There are a few things I'd rather like to see, such as the full Jack the Ripper
files and a certain incident that occured in Rendlesham Forest a few years ago.
Anyone else have any ideas?

Well IIRC the Ripper files are at the PRO in Kew and you can just go
along and see them.


--
James Kemp
Sergeant, Colonel John Fox's Regiment of Foote
http://www.johnfox.org.uk/

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 14.34

Sterling, Wise, Factually-Based Post.

Thanks for posting it.

| Labor had said we were more vulnerable because of Iraq and
| Latham wanted us to become a smaller 'homeland' target.

Kerry's anserine-equine sister also reinforced this message by telling
Australians if they supported America in the War On Terrorism they would
put themselves and their loved ones at increased risk of death and/or
dismemberment -- through terrorist attack. So she advised Australians
to break with the United States in the War On Terrorism. Those most
unwise actions have been almost completely ignored by the American
"Mainstream Media."

Australians seem to have been smart enough to ignore that bit of
treasonous balderdash.

We all know what the weak and wobbly, appeasement-oriented, Left-Wing
Media would have made of a LATHAM VICTORY.

They would be bugling it from the rooftops, the Outback and the Parlour
Socialist Salons.

The New York Times would be absolutely orgasmic over the news.

DSH

""Barrie J. Wright"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:008101c4b119$b7f4f7c0$e1360bd2@barriewr...
| Sorry to have to disagree with Leo, but he's wrong...
|
| Before the Brits or the Kerry supporters put the wrong spin on
| things Australian, please consider:
|
| Labor's Latham HAD said he would withdraw our combat troops
| from Iraq 'by Christmas', exactly mirroring Spain's left party's
policy
| before its election.
|
| He HAD said that Bush was a 'dangerous and incompetent leader',
| mirroring Kerry, et al.
| Meanwhile PM Howard never wavered from his support for Bush
| on Iraq.
| The Australian Embassy was even attacked in Djakarta DURING
| the election campaign. Indonesians, but no Australians, were killed.
| Labor had said we were more vulnerable because of Iraq and
| Latham wanted us to become a smaller 'homeland' target.
|
| The people knew these things over the many months they were
| debated in our press.
|
| Latham did NOT have the courage to emphasise his statements
| in the campaign itself, but neither did he retract Labor's
anti-American
| policy or his offensive words....
| The media scrupulously allowed him to get away with this record
| by ignoring it and emphasising his 'youthful personality politics'..
| .. Very curious in itself....
|
| The Australian public took all that on board.
| Clearly, foreign affairs were a crucial part of this campaign, MORE
| SO than any since the 1967 Vietnam War election.
|
| The Australian people INCREASED by 3.5% their vote for the
| government, which had said it would stay the distance in Iraq
| until it is pacified, AND fight the war on terror elsewhere as well.
|
| Convincing..
| Australians do live in the real world...
|
| Barrie Wright
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]>
| To: <[email protected]>
| Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:51 PM
| Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than
Wimpy
| Spaniards
|
|
| > I think I can rephrase this, I think most Australians did not allow
the
| USA
| > or El Qaeda influence their voting. You would have to have been in
| Australia
| > to realise this, the advertisements of both sides gave little
mention of
| > either if at all. It definitely was not an endorsement of the USA
invading
| > Iraq.
| >
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| > To: <[email protected]>
| > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:19 AM
| > Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart
Than
| Wimpy
| > Spaniards
| >
| >
| > > This blivet speaks for itself and clearly is not subject to proof.
| > >
| > > 'Nuff Said.
| > >
| > > DSH
| > >
| > > | Don't think Australians [sic] voters had the USA in mind......
| > > | Best wishes
| > > | Leo van de Pas
| > > | Canberra, Australia

Barrie J. Wright

Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than

Legg inn av Barrie J. Wright » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 15.38

Sorry to have to disagree with Leo, but he's wrong...

Before the Brits or the Kerry supporters put the wrong spin on
things Australian, please consider:

Labor's Latham HAD said he would withdraw our combat troops
from Iraq 'by Christmas', exactly mirroring Spain's left party's policy
before its election.

He HAD said that Bush was a 'dangerous and incompetent leader',
mirroring Kerry, et al.
Meanwhile PM Howard never wavered from his support for Bush
on Iraq.
The Australian Embassy was even attacked in Djakarta DURING
the election campaign. Indonesians, but no Australians, were killed.
Labor had said we were more vulnerable because of Iraq and
Latham wanted us to become a smaller 'homeland' target.

The people knew these things over the many months they were
debated in our press.

Latham did NOT have the courage to emphasise his statements
in the campaign itself, but neither did he retract Labor's anti-American
policy or his offensive words....
The media scrupulously allowed him to get away with this record
by ignoring it and emphasising his 'youthful personality politics'..
... Very curious in itself....

The Australian public took all that on board.
Clearly, foreign affairs were a crucial part of this campaign, MORE
SO than any since the 1967 Vietnam War election.

The Australian people INCREASED by 3.5% their vote for the
government, which had said it would stay the distance in Iraq
until it is pacified, AND fight the war on terror elsewhere as well.

Convincing..
Australians do live in the real world...

Barrie Wright

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than Wimpy
Spaniards


I think I can rephrase this, I think most Australians did not allow the
USA
or El Qaeda influence their voting. You would have to have been in
Australia
to realise this, the advertisements of both sides gave little mention of
either if at all. It definitely was not an endorsement of the USA invading
Iraq.

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than
Wimpy
Spaniards


This blivet speaks for itself and clearly is not subject to proof.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

| Don't think Australians [sic] voters had the USA in mind......
| Best wishes
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia



______________________________

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 16.55

"But, wasn't it supposed to be one of her [Queen Victoria's -- DSH]
idiot sons who was the butcher? I can't pin down a source for that
right now. Perhaps later."

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
------------------

Mindless, Errant Twaddle....

Texans are supposed to be smarter than this pogue -- and have more
common sense and gravitas.

Hale is peddling and retailing Idle Rumours about his betters again.

Rampant Pogues love to use the British Royals as their target.

Hale fits the pattern to a folderol glove.
----------------------------------

"1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:

A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.

During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:

29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.

7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.

27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the
Royal Family at Balmoral.

2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of
Wales at Sandringham.

Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books. The story
of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has been
proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual
killer, a combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and
alleged lover) James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the
involvement of his father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last
victim.

Take your pick! They're all nonsense.

My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the
dates of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are
drawn, quoting from published court circulars. Mention is also made of
these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these dates in Michael
Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin Howells and
Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow, and
in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo Aronsen.

The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997
---------------------

'Nuff Said.

Hale Is Pandering Drivel And Nonsense Again.

We Have Another BENT NOODLE on our hands -- and posting Balderdash &
Codswallop -- an American this time.

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 17.08

Hilarious!

Hale posts MORE Errant Gibberish.

DSH
-----------------------------

He was Duke of CUMBERLAND.

George Frederic Handel composed "See The Conquering Hero Comes" in honor
of the victorious Duke of Cumberland.

The flower "Sweet William" was named after Cumberland in England, but in
Scotland it is known as "Stinking Willie" or "Sour Billy." In Scotland,
the Duke of Cumberland is also known as "Butcher Cumberland."

DSH

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
| [email protected] writes:
|
| British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of
| Clarence was meant.
|
|
| Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince
| Charlie" at Culloden?
|
| Gordon Hale
| Grand Prairie, Texas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 17.14

Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.

Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$c3b4fea9@email...

| Dear John,
|
| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor asked
| for it to be done.
| Leo

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 18.42

Dear Leo,

More gibberish on your part doesn't help at all.

"Protect the Monarchy..."

Hilarious!

Your Republican roots are coming out?

Read what I posted by Greg King.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:001401c4b164$b22dabc0$c3b4fea9@email...

| Dear Spencer,
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
able to
| detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the fact who
was Jack
| the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong you are obliged to
tell us
| what, according to you, is right. Why couldn't Lord Randolph
Churchill (and
| others) be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you
read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| To: <[email protected]>
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
| >
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
| >
| > DSH
| >
| > ""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$c3b4fea9@email...
| >
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and
the
| > | Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| > | several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| > | monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| > | the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| > | to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
asked
| > | for it to be done.
| > | Leo

William Black

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av William Black » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 19.24

"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

There are a few things I'd rather like to see, such as the full Jack the
Ripper
files and a certain incident that occured in Rendlesham Forest a few years
ago.
Anyone else have any ideas?

The 'Ripper' file was released prematurely a few years ago after a
particularly scurrilous book claimed that the royal family were all
involved, mainly in ritual slaughter for fun, and that all this was in the
files...

Even so, the idea of old Vicky slitting up a prostitute for kicks is one
that somehow doesn't work...

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

John Townsend

Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)

Legg inn av John Townsend » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 21.35

To suspect Eddie of having been Jack the Ripper seems to me to misinterpret
the latter's social class and psychological state. I expect it gave Fleet
Street a good run, but Jack - in common with other such killers - was just a
sad, demented person of no consequence.

Best wishes,

John Townsend

James Dempster

Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)

Legg inn av James Dempster » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 21.37

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:22:27 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.




Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince Charlie" at
Culloden?

Nope, it was the Duke of Cumberland.


To vaguely get this back towards medieval, wouldn't have been much
more interesting if George, Duke of Clarence had been alleged to be
Jack the Ripper, or would the madiera stains have provided the
essential clue that spoiled the mystery?
James Dempster (remove nospam to reply by email)

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

David Webb

Re: OT - finis, back to the banu Qasi

Legg inn av David Webb » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 21.52

5) I think this email shows your Portuguese as well as your Latin
grammar to
be shaky.

David, is this a genetic trait - your intellectual self-imolation
evidenced by attacking the best warriors on their own ground? This is
unbelievable.


Thank you for your assinine message. Francisco Doria, or whatever his name
was, sent me an email admitting he had got the Portuguese grammar wrong and
that loquaz was an adjective!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I was right,
and you were wrong. Tell me now, what is your IQ level? (Shades of the Bell
Curve?)

Gjest

Re: The British/English Constitution

Legg inn av Gjest » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 22.19

In a message dated 10/13/2004 1:25:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Even so, the idea of old Vicky slitting up a prostitute for kicks is one
that somehow doesn't work...






But, wasn't it supposed to be one of her idiot sons who was the butcher? I
can't pin down a source for that right now. Perhaps later.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 22.20

Leo,

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable." [LVDP]

You are just posting more gibberish -- without a shred of proof.

Tell us all about the Duke of Clarence's marriage to an Orleans
princess.

DSH

John Parsons

Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)

Legg inn av John Parsons » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 22.52

It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale (1864-1892)
who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor after his father, Edward
VII.

Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s after
the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to light. These
papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's patients, as the son of
a noble English family, a man whose parents were renowned for their social
gifts and who had done much to enhance British prestige around the world.
While the account in no way pointed directly to the royal family, the
British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.

Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court Circular
showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one of the Whitechapel
murders.

For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was later
made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that he was among
those present when a homosexual brothel in London was raided. Allegedly he
had gone there expecting the Victorian equivalent of an evening of strip
teases by pretty girls, and left quite disappointed.

No certain conclusions about his private life can be based on this one
incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries and letters of the time
that the duke carried on every bit as active a heterosexual love life as did
his father. In fact royal secretaries were petrified at the mere thought
that Queen Victoria might find out what her grandson was up to, and
elaborate strategies were developed to conceal the truth from her. Albert
Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love affair to another, at one point
falling desperately in love with a daughter of the Count of Paris,
precipitating a minor crisis as public opinion would have opposed his
marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the republican French government would not
have wished the stature of the exiled Orleans family to be enhanced by such
a marriage.

The attractive but mentally inert Albert Victor was engaged in 1891 to his
cousin Princess "May" of Teck, but the next January caught influenza while
hunting at Sandringham and died of pneumonia. (Princess May in 1893 married
his younger brother George, duke of York, who became George V in 1910.)
Rumor continues to insist that Albert Victor died of something of a more
social nature than pneumonia, but no proof of this has yet been found.

John P.


From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The British/English Constitution
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:19:00 EDT


In a message dated 10/13/2004 1:25:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Even so, the idea of old Vicky slitting up a prostitute for kicks is one
that somehow doesn't work...






But, wasn't it supposed to be one of her idiot sons who was the butcher?
I
can't pin down a source for that right now. Perhaps later.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas


Chris Phillips

Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 23.07

John Parsons wrote:
It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale
(1864-1892)
who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor after his father,
Edward
VII.

Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s after
the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to light. These
papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's patients, as the son
of
a noble English family, a man whose parents were renowned for their social
gifts and who had done much to enhance British prestige around the world.
While the account in no way pointed directly to the royal family, the
British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.

Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court Circular
showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one of the
Whitechapel
murders.

For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was
later
made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that he was
among
those present when a homosexual brothel in London was raided. Allegedly
he
had gone there expecting the Victorian equivalent of an evening of strip
teases by pretty girls, and left quite disappointed.

(I suppose this is not strictly off-topic, as post-medieval royal genealogy
is within the scope of the group/list, and the Ripper allegations include
all sorts of stories of clandestine marriages and the like.)

As far as I know, there was no hard evidence to link Prince Albert Victor to
the Cleveland Street scandal, though there was a good deal of gossip at the
time. It was one of the others implicated in the Cleveland Street affair,
Lord Euston, who claimed - rather unconvincingly, I think - that he had gone
there in response to an advertisement for "poses plastiques" (the precursor
of strip-tease).

Albert Victor did indeed have an alibi, and the claims about the alleged
notes of Queen Victoria's physician, Dr William Gull, published by Thomas
Stowell in 1970, are extremely dubious.

I'd recommend anyone interested in the Whitechapel Murders to visit this
scholarly and informative website:
http://casebook.org/
The section on Prince Albert Victor as a suspect is here:
http://casebook.org/suspects/eddy.html
And there is even a set of message boards with extremely well-informed
participants, who can give chapter and verse on this and all the other
theories about Jack the Ripper. (Of course, there are also some extremely
ill-informed participants, as on all Internet discussion boards!)

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)

Legg inn av Gjest » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 23.22

In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.




Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince Charlie" at
Culloden?

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Leo van de Pas

Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 13. oktober 2004 kl. 23.39

The Brits have had more than one Duke of Clarence.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)


In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence
was
meant.




Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince Charlie"
at
Culloden?

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas


Gjest

re: the ripper

Legg inn av Gjest » 14. oktober 2004 kl. 0.28

Leo is only conveying another theory to this conversation - Let's, however,
put this into context. The Crimes were committed by a person with knowledge of
surgical procedures - this is something that comes across in all the
theories and stories.
In those days - and in fact until quite recently, say about 50 years,
certainly in Britain, the Surgeon was regarded as the 'poor man' of the Medical
world - the Physician ruled - but again, the Physician was regarded as yet
another member of the aspiring ruling classes, not actually a part of it. He was,
and remains, certainly amongst the people I know, a bright, motivated member
of the 'middling' classes who aspired to make his children accepted as
someone to 'know'.
There were exceptions that proved the rule, such as my mother's first
cousin, Lawrence Collier, aka Lord Monkswell, although he never used his title. But
his foray into medicine was one of intentional personal learning and a need
to feel as if he were giving something back to the people.
the fact that the criminal somehow knew the 'more than basics' of surgery
would have made him a failed medic or even a medic with a grudge against the
looseer morès of the times!
regards
peter

Leo van de Pas

OT Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 14. oktober 2004 kl. 0.35

Dear Spencer,
So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are able to
detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the fact who was Jack
the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong you are obliged to tell us
what, according to you, is right. Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and
others) be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you read
this book?


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson


Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.

Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$c3b4fea9@email...

| Dear John,
|
| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor asked
| for it to be done.
| Leo


John Parsons

Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)

Legg inn av John Parsons » 14. oktober 2004 kl. 0.56

That was William, duke of Cumberland, the younger son of George II.

John P.

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:22:23 EDT


In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
meant.




Wasn't it William, a duke of Clarence, who whipped "Bonny Prince Charlie"
at
Culloden?

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»