Katherine Howard problem et.al.
Katherine Howard problem et.al.
2011-02-20 16:26:15
Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation, almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as a deduction from their own reasoning.
He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
L.M.L.,
Janet T.
You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation, almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as a deduction from their own reasoning.
He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
L.M.L.,
Janet T.
Re: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
2011-02-20 16:42:57
Interesting. Wikipedia can only be as good as it's sources - I know because I correct errors sometimes - but it is generally quite good.
Last night's episode saw Dereham, Culpeper, Lady Rochford and Queen Katharine all being executed.
----- Original Message -----
From: J. T,
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation, almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as a deduction from their own reasoning.
He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
L.M.L.,
Janet T.
Last night's episode saw Dereham, Culpeper, Lady Rochford and Queen Katharine all being executed.
----- Original Message -----
From: J. T,
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation, almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as a deduction from their own reasoning.
He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
L.M.L.,
Janet T.
Re: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
2011-02-20 19:01:10
--- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@...> wrote:
>
> Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
> You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation, almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as a deduction from their own reasoning.
> He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
> This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
I have the same thoughts. This is a time-honored lazy research method -- find a forum of people with knowledge of a subject, make some sort of opinionated or semi-outrageous statement (for example, in a Tudor-era forum "Elizabeth I was actually a hermaphrodite") then sit back and watch people respond, citing chapter and verse. It's a way to painlessly garner a whole lot of research.
I think it's best to respond to such ploys with "What makes you think that?" or "I disgree" and put the burden back on the asker.
Katy
>
> Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
> You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation, almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as a deduction from their own reasoning.
> He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
> This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
I have the same thoughts. This is a time-honored lazy research method -- find a forum of people with knowledge of a subject, make some sort of opinionated or semi-outrageous statement (for example, in a Tudor-era forum "Elizabeth I was actually a hermaphrodite") then sit back and watch people respond, citing chapter and verse. It's a way to painlessly garner a whole lot of research.
I think it's best to respond to such ploys with "What makes you think that?" or "I disgree" and put the burden back on the asker.
Katy
Re: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
2011-02-20 19:11:09
On 20/02/2011 11:26 AM, J. T, wrote:
>
> Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as
> Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they
> were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more
> well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
> You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation,
> almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as
> a deduction from their own reasoning.
> He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the
> research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
> This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who
> "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All
> surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a
> Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>
I would hope you're right.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3455 - Release Date: 02/20/11
>
>
> Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as
> Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they
> were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more
> well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
> You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation,
> almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as
> a deduction from their own reasoning.
> He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the
> research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
> This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who
> "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All
> surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a
> Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>
I would hope you're right.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3455 - Release Date: 02/20/11
>
Re: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
2011-02-20 19:13:15
Once read an article on Wikipedia vs. Britannica, and found that
Britannica also has a goodly percentage of error. At least you can
correct Wikipedia. Doing so can be a humbling experience, since you may
end up being the one who is wrong.
On 20/02/2011 11:42 AM, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> Interesting. Wikipedia can only be as good as it's sources - I know
> because I correct errors sometimes - but it is generally quite good.
>
> Last night's episode saw Dereham, Culpeper, Lady Rochford and Queen
> Katharine all being executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J. T,
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 4:26 PM
> Subject: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
>
> Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as
> Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they
> were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more
> well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
> You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation,
> almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as
> a deduction from their own reasoning.
> He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the
> research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
> This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who
> "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All
> surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a
> Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3455 - Release Date: 02/20/11
>
Britannica also has a goodly percentage of error. At least you can
correct Wikipedia. Doing so can be a humbling experience, since you may
end up being the one who is wrong.
On 20/02/2011 11:42 AM, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> Interesting. Wikipedia can only be as good as it's sources - I know
> because I correct errors sometimes - but it is generally quite good.
>
> Last night's episode saw Dereham, Culpeper, Lady Rochford and Queen
> Katharine all being executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J. T,
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 4:26 PM
> Subject: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
>
> Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as
> Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they
> were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more
> well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
> You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation,
> almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as
> a deduction from their own reasoning.
> He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the
> research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
> This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who
> "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All
> surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a
> Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3455 - Release Date: 02/20/11
>
Re: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
2011-02-20 19:19:53
For instance, "The Tudors" was on again last night - and I have read that it was shown in Canada last autumn - showed Lady Rochford beheaded before Katherine and Wikipedia says that the Queen went first.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Barber
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
Once read an article on Wikipedia vs. Britannica, and found that
Britannica also has a goodly percentage of error. At least you can
correct Wikipedia. Doing so can be a humbling experience, since you may
end up being the one who is wrong.
On 20/02/2011 11:42 AM, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> Interesting. Wikipedia can only be as good as it's sources - I know
> because I correct errors sometimes - but it is generally quite good.
>
> Last night's episode saw Dereham, Culpeper, Lady Rochford and Queen
> Katharine all being executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J. T,
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 4:26 PM
> Subject: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
>
> Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as
> Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they
> were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more
> well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
> You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation,
> almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as
> a deduction from their own reasoning.
> He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the
> research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
> This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who
> "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All
> surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a
> Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3455 - Release Date: 02/20/11
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Barber
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
Once read an article on Wikipedia vs. Britannica, and found that
Britannica also has a goodly percentage of error. At least you can
correct Wikipedia. Doing so can be a humbling experience, since you may
end up being the one who is wrong.
On 20/02/2011 11:42 AM, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> Interesting. Wikipedia can only be as good as it's sources - I know
> because I correct errors sometimes - but it is generally quite good.
>
> Last night's episode saw Dereham, Culpeper, Lady Rochford and Queen
> Katharine all being executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J. T,
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 4:26 PM
> Subject: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
>
> Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as
> Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they
> were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more
> well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
> You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation,
> almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as
> a deduction from their own reasoning.
> He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the
> research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
> This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who
> "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All
> surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a
> Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3455 - Release Date: 02/20/11
>
Re: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
2011-02-20 20:12:53
i am researching in prep to write a book. the info i disburse is in public domain. some of it interesting and applicable to my research. some of it may be applicable to other's research, or of just plain interest to ricardians.
i was warned early, when i joined this group...not to share completely, as there are serious researchers and writers who would pick up on tidbits of little known info. personally, i would not have a problem with this...IF...the person who is gleaning gave credit where credit is due. however, i have seen time and time again when someone postulates a theory or provides a heretofore unknown verifiable source..that there is always someone to profit from your find/disclosure..becoming the "hero" of the day when they "make it their own" by publishing either for a professor, or for profit.
there are loads of lazy researchers who scavange online data bases for tidbits to sell in their "created" research. there are also researchers/writers who are very open about what they are doing and request assistance.
i don't care what veremeer is doing. i'm only going to share, what i feel like sharing. i know if i get it wrong..one or more members will speak up to correct the record.
veremeer has created some stimulating discussions. i find only this individual's interest and implied negative commentary with regards to "the subject being discussed" sometimes objectionable. i.e. homophobic and/or misogynistic.
i have noticed some of veremeer's posts have the potential to ruffle feathers, aside from the interest in sexual commentary.
my impression is that veermere is on a steep learning curve and often posts to feel included and to activate dialogue. so personally, i don't have a big problem with veermere. i love the shock factor..:-)
roslyn
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, J. T, <treenbagh@...> wrote:
From: J. T, <treenbagh@...>
Subject: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
To:
Received: Sunday, February 20, 2011, 11:26 AM
Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation, almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as a deduction from their own reasoning.
He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
L.M.L.,
Janet T.
i was warned early, when i joined this group...not to share completely, as there are serious researchers and writers who would pick up on tidbits of little known info. personally, i would not have a problem with this...IF...the person who is gleaning gave credit where credit is due. however, i have seen time and time again when someone postulates a theory or provides a heretofore unknown verifiable source..that there is always someone to profit from your find/disclosure..becoming the "hero" of the day when they "make it their own" by publishing either for a professor, or for profit.
there are loads of lazy researchers who scavange online data bases for tidbits to sell in their "created" research. there are also researchers/writers who are very open about what they are doing and request assistance.
i don't care what veremeer is doing. i'm only going to share, what i feel like sharing. i know if i get it wrong..one or more members will speak up to correct the record.
veremeer has created some stimulating discussions. i find only this individual's interest and implied negative commentary with regards to "the subject being discussed" sometimes objectionable. i.e. homophobic and/or misogynistic.
i have noticed some of veremeer's posts have the potential to ruffle feathers, aside from the interest in sexual commentary.
my impression is that veermere is on a steep learning curve and often posts to feel included and to activate dialogue. so personally, i don't have a big problem with veermere. i love the shock factor..:-)
roslyn
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, J. T, <treenbagh@...> wrote:
From: J. T, <treenbagh@...>
Subject: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
To:
Received: Sunday, February 20, 2011, 11:26 AM
Who is this vermeer2 who lobs obvious snippets from sites such as Wikipedia into the discussion - with no references cited - as if they were "gospel truth" and then sits back while many of the more well-read members of the group fill in all the blanks?
You will notice that in the posts that follow his/her intial creation, almost everyone cites the reference for their opinion - or notes it as a deduction from their own reasoning.
He/she must be writing a book and you other guys are doing the research! Which is fine if that is what you want to do.
This topic seems to have been played out and now we go on to who "hated" who amongst the Plantagenets and their compatriots. All surmise and conjecture..... but then again, one need not be a Ricardian to join the group, am I right?
L.M.L.,
Janet T.
Re: Katherine Howard problem et.al.
2011-02-21 01:10:42
On 20 Feb 2011, at 16:42, Stephen Lark wrote:
> Last night's episode saw Dereham, Culpeper, Lady Rochford and Queen Katharine all being executed.
Dereham's hanging drawing and quartering was promised as being graphic. I was disappointed (!)
And Lady Rochford who wasn't mad being beheaded in public on the same block as the queen? Katherine was beheaded inside the Tower. Historical nonsense yet again. Still at least they got Katherine's last words correct. She actually did say she' would rather die wife of Thomas Culpeper.' A "screw you" at the king and the Howrds who helped send her to his bed no doubt!
Paul
> Last night's episode saw Dereham, Culpeper, Lady Rochford and Queen Katharine all being executed.
Dereham's hanging drawing and quartering was promised as being graphic. I was disappointed (!)
And Lady Rochford who wasn't mad being beheaded in public on the same block as the queen? Katherine was beheaded inside the Tower. Historical nonsense yet again. Still at least they got Katherine's last words correct. She actually did say she' would rather die wife of Thomas Culpeper.' A "screw you" at the king and the Howrds who helped send her to his bed no doubt!
Paul
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.