Excuse me, but....

When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.

Just saying....

Katy

Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
>
> Just saying....
>
> Katy
>

Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.

Katy

--- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> >
> > Just saying....
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
>
> Katy
>
> --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > >
> > > Just saying....
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>

WARNING

If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.

Regards,

Forum Moderator

.




On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:

> Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > >
> > > > Just saying....
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Thank you, Nell.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Excuse me, but....


 
WARNING

If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.

Regards,

Forum Moderator

.

On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:

> Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > >
> > > > Just saying....
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!

--- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
> WARNING
>
> If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Forum Moderator
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just saying....
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Thing is - we've been here before. I don't contribute much to this group because most of my reading and research into this period was done a long time ago and my knowledge is out of date. I keep up with it because I am still interested and I like to read what people's views are.

When I first joined the group I read through all the existing posts to see what had gone before.Almost all the questions I would have been likely to ask had already been discussed. A lot of these points have been covered already, several times in some cases.

There are many knowledgeable individuals around here and it's a great forum to clarify people's thinking on certain points but pressing a certain point of view even when one has had answers smacks of an agenda rather than the spirit of inquiry.

HTH.

Katherine.

--- On Sun, 29/7/12, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
To:
Date: Sunday, 29 July, 2012, 4:52

Foop.  If the shoe fits, wear it,  Otherwise, ignore my comment.

Katy

>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.


With regards to the forum I would like to say this:

Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.

If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.

Regards,

Moderator




On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:

> Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
>
> --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> >
> > WARNING
> >
> > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Forum Moderator
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is that we do not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there but we still don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago during a meeting of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of Birmingham asked people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the Princes, no one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the Princes, same response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so therefore we couldn't say one way or the other.

Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the issues because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she can for evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short reign. Annette also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into account R.E COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's excellent "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The Deceivers" also should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort was up to something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.

I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and continue to research for any evidence that we can of what happened during Richard's reign. We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell, was he Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's illegimate children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles murder Edward IV as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony Woodville was certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville take the treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a tradition in the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her two sons by permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control over his wife after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard give them a prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be answered before anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.

--- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
>
> I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
>
>
> With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
>
> Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
>
> If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Moderator
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> >
> > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > >
> > > WARNING
> > >
> > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Forum Moderator
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

What constitutes "pressing a certain point of view," in your opinion?
Is there a forum limit on the number of questions one can ask about a given subject? If the "answers" given are not verifiable facts but simply statements of opinion, even a "majority opinion" as "established" by some in this forum, are such answers to be treated as "established dogma"?

--- In , KATHERINE MICHAUD <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>
> Thing is - we've been here before. I don't contribute much to this group because most of my reading and research into this period was done a long time ago and my knowledge is out of date. I keep up with it because I am still interested and I like to read what people's views are.
>
> When I first joined the group I read through all the existing posts to see what had gone before.Almost all the questions I would have been likely to ask had already been discussed. A lot of these points have been covered already, several times in some cases.
>
> There are many knowledgeable individuals around here and it's a great forum to clarify people's thinking on certain points but pressing a certain point of view even when one has had answers smacks of an agenda rather than the spirit of inquiry.
>
> HTH.
>
> Katherine.
>
> --- On Sun, 29/7/12, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> To:
> Date: Sunday, 29 July, 2012, 4:52
>
> Foop.  If the shoe fits, wear it,  Otherwise, ignore my comment.
>
> Katy
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And how are members of the forum to respond to attacks and criticism, even when "indirect"?

--- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
>
> I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
>
>
> With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
>
> Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
>
> If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Moderator
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> >
> > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > >
> > > WARNING
> > >
> > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Forum Moderator
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples' attraction to Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective interest in determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have already posted that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to Richard, based upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical treatment. Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have others had a similar experience?

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is that we do not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there but we still don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago during a meeting of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of Birmingham asked people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the Princes, no one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the Princes, same response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so therefore we couldn't say one way or the other.
>
> Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the issues because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she can for evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short reign. Annette also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into account R.E COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's excellent "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The Deceivers" also should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort was up to something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
>
> I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and continue to research for any evidence that we can of what happened during Richard's reign. We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell, was he Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's illegimate children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles murder Edward IV as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony Woodville was certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville take the treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a tradition in the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her two sons by permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control over his wife after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard give them a prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be answered before anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
>
> --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
> >
> >
> > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> >
> > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
> >
> > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > >
> > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING
> > > >
> > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Forum Moderator
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in my teens, but
the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have challenged someone to
a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews. Now, not so
much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable number of) years ago,
I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his family, and now I
find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I don't really want
any.

Karen

From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....






I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples' attraction to
Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective interest in
determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have already posted
that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to Richard, based
upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical treatment.
Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have others had a
similar experience?

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ricard1an"
<maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is that we do
not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there but we still
don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago during a meeting
of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of Birmingham asked
people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the Princes, no
one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the Princes, same
response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so therefore we
couldn't say one way or the other.
>
> Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the issues
because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she can for
evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short reign. Annette
also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into account R.E
COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's excellent
"Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The Deceivers" also
should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort was up to
something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
>
> I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and continue to
research for any evidence that we can of what happened during Richard's reign.
We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell, was he
Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's illegimate
children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles murder Edward IV
as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony Woodville was
certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville take the
treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a tradition in
the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her two sons by
permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control over his wife
after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard give them a
prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be answered before
anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump <neil.trump@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line
personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown
ups' and should behave as such.
> >
> >
> > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> >
> > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if
people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the
same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate,
which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others
must agree, because they probably won't.
> >
> > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if
possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when
dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be
interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid
any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be
reminded of this.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think
that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the
integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they
have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to
not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump <neil.trump@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING
> > > >
> > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Forum Moderator
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to
criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for
their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by
refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank
you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally
people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a
contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the
answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up
knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their
views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into
sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

typically they just go silent, maybe even quit the forum. definitely they stop contributing, sharing and learning.

there is a lot of one upmanship here. there are also a lot very informed researchers. you just have to sort the wheat from the chaff and hope that the rumours in the background don't destroy your credibility.
 
roslyn
--- On Sun, 7/29/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:


From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
To:
Received: Sunday, July 29, 2012, 8:21 PM



 



And how are members of the forum to respond to attacks and criticism, even when "indirect"?

--- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
>
> I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
>
>
> With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
>
> Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
>
> If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Moderator
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> >
> > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > >
> > > WARNING
> > >
> > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Forum Moderator
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who were drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been "refined" as we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in my teens, but
> the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have challenged someone to
> a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews. Now, not so
> much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable number of) years ago,
> I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his family, and now I
> find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I don't really want
> any.
>
> Karen
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples' attraction to
> Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective interest in
> determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have already posted
> that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to Richard, based
> upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical treatment.
> Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have others had a
> similar experience?
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is that we do
> not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there but we still
> don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago during a meeting
> of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of Birmingham asked
> people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the Princes, no
> one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the Princes, same
> response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so therefore we
> couldn't say one way or the other.
> >
> > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the issues
> because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she can for
> evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short reign. Annette
> also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into account R.E
> COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's excellent
> "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The Deceivers" also
> should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort was up to
> something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
> >
> > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and continue to
> research for any evidence that we can of what happened during Richard's reign.
> We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell, was he
> Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's illegimate
> children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles murder Edward IV
> as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony Woodville was
> certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville take the
> treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a tradition in
> the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her two sons by
> permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control over his wife
> after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard give them a
> prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be answered before
> anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump <neil.trump@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line
> personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown
> ups' and should behave as such.
> > >
> > >
> > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > >
> > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if
> people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the
> same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate,
> which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others
> must agree, because they probably won't.
> > >
> > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if
> possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when
> dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be
> interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid
> any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be
> reminded of this.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Moderator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think
> that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the
> integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they
> have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to
> not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump <neil.trump@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > WARNING
> > > > >
> > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
> <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to
> criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for
> their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by
> refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank
> you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally
> people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a
> contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the
> answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up
> knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their
> views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into
> sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have done the exact opposite and view my change as 'refining', too.
Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.

Linda
--- In , "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who were
drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been "refined" as
we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
>
> --- In , Karen Clark
Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> >
> > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in my
teens, but
> > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have challenged
someone to
> > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews. Now,
not so
> > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable number of)
years ago,
> > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his family,
and now I
> > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I don't
really want
> > any.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples'
attraction to
> > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
interest in
> > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have already
posted
> > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to Richard,
based
> > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical
treatment.
> > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have others
had a
> > similar experience?
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ricard1an"
> > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is
that we do
> > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there
but we still
> > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago
during a meeting
> > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of
Birmingham asked
> > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the
Princes, no
> > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the
Princes, same
> > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so
therefore we
> > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > >
> > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the
issues
> > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she
can for
> > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short
reign. Annette
> > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into
account R.E
> > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's
excellent
> > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The
Deceivers" also
> > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort
was up to
> > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
> > >
> > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and
continue to
> > research for any evidence that we can of what happened during
Richard's reign.
> > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell,
was he
> > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's
illegimate
> > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles
murder Edward IV
> > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
Woodville was
> > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville
take the
> > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a
tradition in
> > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her
two sons by
> > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control
over his wife
> > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard
give them a
> > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be
answered before
> > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
<neil.trump@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up
having on-line
> > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are
all 'grown
> > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > >
> > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible.
However if
> > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others
do the
> > same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark
debate,
> > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel
that others
> > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > >
> > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared
with facts if
> > possible and any information at hand to back up their argument,
especially when
> > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing
or can be
> > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument
and avoid
> > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need
to be
> > reminded of this.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Moderator
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I
don't think
> > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism
to have the
> > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
criticizing. If they
> > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the
forum" so as to
> > not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
<neil.trump@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
accordingly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people
directly?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my
comment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
> > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you
mean to
> > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's
Research for
> > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their
answers by
> > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality"
issue? Thank
> > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions,
naturally
> > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on
with a
> > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more
"proof" in the
> > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research.
Stir up
> > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to
support their
> > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research,
often into
> > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Fine! No one was trying to establish a "rule" in this matter. And as for anyone trying to "rescue" you from your belief, who is trying to do so?

--- In , "asphodellynwormwood" <asphodellynwormwood@...> wrote:
>
> I have done the exact opposite and view my change as 'refining', too.
> Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.
>
> Linda
> --- In , "warrenmalach"
> <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who were
> drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been "refined" as
> we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark
> Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in my
> teens, but
> > > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have challenged
> someone to
> > > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews. Now,
> not so
> > > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable number of)
> years ago,
> > > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his family,
> and now I
> > > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I don't
> really want
> > > any.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples'
> attraction to
> > > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
> interest in
> > > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have already
> posted
> > > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to Richard,
> based
> > > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical
> treatment.
> > > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have others
> had a
> > > similar experience?
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ricard1an"
> > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is
> that we do
> > > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there
> but we still
> > > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago
> during a meeting
> > > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of
> Birmingham asked
> > > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the
> Princes, no
> > > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the
> Princes, same
> > > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so
> therefore we
> > > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > > >
> > > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the
> issues
> > > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she
> can for
> > > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short
> reign. Annette
> > > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into
> account R.E
> > > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's
> excellent
> > > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The
> Deceivers" also
> > > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort
> was up to
> > > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
> > > >
> > > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and
> continue to
> > > research for any evidence that we can of what happened during
> Richard's reign.
> > > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell,
> was he
> > > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's
> illegimate
> > > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles
> murder Edward IV
> > > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
> Woodville was
> > > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville
> take the
> > > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a
> tradition in
> > > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her
> two sons by
> > > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control
> over his wife
> > > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard
> give them a
> > > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be
> answered before
> > > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
> <neil.trump@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up
> having on-line
> > > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are
> all 'grown
> > > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible.
> However if
> > > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others
> do the
> > > same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark
> debate,
> > > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel
> that others
> > > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > > >
> > > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared
> with facts if
> > > possible and any information at hand to back up their argument,
> especially when
> > > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing
> or can be
> > > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument
> and avoid
> > > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need
> to be
> > > reminded of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Moderator
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I
> don't think
> > > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism
> to have the
> > > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
> criticizing. If they
> > > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the
> forum" so as to
> > > not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
> <neil.trump@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
> accordingly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people
> directly?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my
> comment.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
> > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you
> mean to
> > > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's
> Research for
> > > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their
> answers by
> > > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality"
> issue? Thank
> > > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions,
> naturally
> > > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on
> with a
> > > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more
> "proof" in the
> > > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research.
> Stir up
> > > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to
> support their
> > > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research,
> often into
> > > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I don't think any of us do, Linda. We come to our opinions, refining them or
not, on our own. And no-one should be offering 'rescue', one way or the
other!

Karen

From: asphodellynwormwood <asphodellynwormwood@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 03:59:10 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....






I have done the exact opposite and view my change as 'refining', too.
Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.

Linda
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who were
drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been "refined" as
we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> >
> > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in my
teens, but
> > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have challenged
someone to
> > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews. Now,
not so
> > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable number of)
years ago,
> > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his family,
and now I
> > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I don't
really want
> > any.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples'
attraction to
> > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
interest in
> > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have already
posted
> > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to Richard,
based
> > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical
treatment.
> > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have others
had a
> > similar experience?
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ricard1an"
> > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is
that we do
> > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there
but we still
> > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago
during a meeting
> > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of
Birmingham asked
> > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the
Princes, no
> > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the
Princes, same
> > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so
therefore we
> > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > >
> > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the
issues
> > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she
can for
> > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short
reign. Annette
> > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into
account R.E
> > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's
excellent
> > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The
Deceivers" also
> > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort
was up to
> > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
> > >
> > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and
continue to
> > research for any evidence that we can of what happened during
Richard's reign.
> > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell,
was he
> > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's
illegimate
> > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles
murder Edward IV
> > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
Woodville was
> > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville
take the
> > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a
tradition in
> > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her
two sons by
> > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control
over his wife
> > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard
give them a
> > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be
answered before
> > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
<neil.trump@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up
having on-line
> > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are
all 'grown
> > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > >
> > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible.
However if
> > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others
do the
> > same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark
debate,
> > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel
that others
> > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > >
> > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared
with facts if
> > possible and any information at hand to back up their argument,
especially when
> > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing
or can be
> > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument
and avoid
> > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need
to be
> > reminded of this.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Moderator
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I
don't think
> > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism
to have the
> > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
criticizing. If they
> > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the
forum" so as to
> > not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
<neil.trump@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
accordingly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people
directly?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my
comment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
> > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you
mean to
> > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's
Research for
> > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their
answers by
> > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality"
issue? Thank
> > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions,
naturally
> > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on
with a
> > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more
"proof" in the
> > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research.
Stir up
> > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to
support their
> > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research,
often into
> > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I fully intend to ignore comments from certain posters on this list.
I joined this list to learn, not to be insulted by anyone wanting to
pick arguments with everyone. I'm one step away from saying good-bye and
good riddance. The list was enjoyable and informative before this latest
flame war erupted. I'm disgusted with it.

Linda
--- In , "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> Fine! No one was trying to establish a "rule" in this matter. And as
for anyone trying to "rescue" you from your belief, who is trying to do
so? See what's highlighted below for the reason behind this comment.
>
> --- In , "asphodellynwormwood"
asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> >
> > I have done the exact opposite and view my change as 'refining',
too.
> > Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.
> >
> > Linda
> > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who were
> > drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been "refined"
as
> > we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
> > >
> > > --- In , Karen Clark
> > Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in my
> > teens, but
> > > > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have
challenged
> > someone to
> > > > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews.
Now,
> > not so
> > > > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable number
of)
> > years ago,
> > > > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his
family,
> > and now I
> > > > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I don't
> > really want
> > > > any.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples'
> > attraction to
> > > > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
> > interest in
> > > > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have
already
> > posted
> > > > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to
Richard,
> > based
> > > > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical
> > treatment.
> > > > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have
others
> > had a
> > > > similar experience?
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ricard1an"
> > > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story
is
> > that we do
> > > > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out
there
> > but we still
> > > > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago
> > during a meeting
> > > > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of
> > Birmingham asked
> > > > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed
the
> > Princes, no
> > > > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill
the
> > Princes, same
> > > > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so
> > therefore we
> > > > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > > > >
> > > > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address
the
> > issues
> > > > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as
she
> > can for
> > > > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short
> > reign. Annette
> > > > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into
> > account R.E
> > > > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's
> > excellent
> > > > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The
> > Deceivers" also
> > > > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret
Beaufort
> > was up to
> > > > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly
what.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum
and
> > continue to
> > > > research for any evidence that we can of what happened during
> > Richard's reign.
> > > > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of
Eastwell,
> > was he
> > > > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even
Edward's
> > illegimate
> > > > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles
> > murder Edward IV
> > > > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
> > Woodville was
> > > > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward
Woodville
> > take the
> > > > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was
there a
> > tradition in
> > > > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih
her
> > two sons by
> > > > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley
control
> > over his wife
> > > > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did
Richard
> > give them a
> > > > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be
> > answered before
> > > > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
> > <neil.trump@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to end
up
> > having on-line
> > > > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We
are
> > all 'grown
> > > > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible.
> > However if
> > > > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when
others
> > do the
> > > > same. Please take into account also that being subjective will
spark
> > debate,
> > > > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and
feel
> > that others
> > > > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be
prepared
> > with facts if
> > > > possible and any information at hand to back up their argument,
> > especially when
> > > > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is
missing
> > or can be
> > > > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the
argument
> > and avoid
> > > > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not
need
> > to be
> > > > reminded of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moderator
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I
> > don't think
> > > > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the
criticism
> > to have the
> > > > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
> > criticizing. If they
> > > > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the
> > forum" so as to
> > > > not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
> > <neil.trump@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
> > accordingly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people
> > directly?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"oregon_katy"
> > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore
my
> > comment.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"warrenmalach"
> > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom
you
> > mean to
> > > > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's
> > Research for
> > > > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for
their
> > answers by
> > > > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a
"personality"
> > issue? Thank
> > > > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"oregon_katy"
> > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with
questions,
> > naturally
> > > > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and
on
> > with a
> > > > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and
more
> > "proof" in the
> > > > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's
Research.
> > Stir up
> > > > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to
> > support their
> > > > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of
research,
> > often into
> > > > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Well, IS it "heresy" to believe that Richard was quite capable of having been responsible for the disappearence and (presumed) deaths of the Princes? IS Richard a (figurative) "knight in shining armor" or a human being flawed like any OTHER human being? After a few attempts, I learned early on to stay away from the modern novels written about Richard, because they seemed to rather uniformly treat him as the hero in a "Harlequin Romance." I never did read RL Stevenson's THE BLACK ARROW, but I understand that Richard is NOT portrayed very favorably there. Is it even POSSIBLE to be OBJECTIVE about Richard III?

I return to my earlier film quotation: "People with fixed delusions become aggressive when they are challenged." When we become so emotionally invested in an historical character that any questioning of them makes us angry and upset, have we perhaps "crossed the line"?

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> typically they just go silent, maybe even quit the forum. definitely they stop contributing, sharing and learning.
>
> there is a lot of one upmanship here. there are also a lot very informed researchers. you just have to sort the wheat from the chaff and hope that the rumours in the background don't destroy your credibility.
>  
> roslyn
> --- On Sun, 7/29/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> To:
> Received: Sunday, July 29, 2012, 8:21 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> And how are members of the forum to respond to attacks and criticism, even when "indirect"?
>
> --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
> >
> >
> > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> >
> > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
> >
> > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > >
> > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING
> > > >
> > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Forum Moderator
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Amen!

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think any of us do, Linda. We come to our opinions, refining them or
> not, on our own. And no-one should be offering 'rescue', one way or the
> other!
>
> Karen
>
> From: asphodellynwormwood <asphodellynwormwood@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 03:59:10 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have done the exact opposite and view my change as 'refining', too.
> Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.
>
> Linda
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
> <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who were
> drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been "refined" as
> we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in my
> teens, but
> > > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have challenged
> someone to
> > > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews. Now,
> not so
> > > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable number of)
> years ago,
> > > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his family,
> and now I
> > > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I don't
> really want
> > > any.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > Reply-To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples'
> attraction to
> > > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
> interest in
> > > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have already
> posted
> > > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to Richard,
> based
> > > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical
> treatment.
> > > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have others
> had a
> > > similar experience?
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ricard1an"
> > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is
> that we do
> > > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there
> but we still
> > > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago
> during a meeting
> > > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of
> Birmingham asked
> > > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the
> Princes, no
> > > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the
> Princes, same
> > > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so
> therefore we
> > > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > > >
> > > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the
> issues
> > > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she
> can for
> > > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short
> reign. Annette
> > > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into
> account R.E
> > > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's
> excellent
> > > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The
> Deceivers" also
> > > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort
> was up to
> > > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
> > > >
> > > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and
> continue to
> > > research for any evidence that we can of what happened during
> Richard's reign.
> > > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell,
> was he
> > > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's
> illegimate
> > > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles
> murder Edward IV
> > > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
> Woodville was
> > > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville
> take the
> > > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a
> tradition in
> > > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her
> two sons by
> > > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control
> over his wife
> > > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard
> give them a
> > > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be
> answered before
> > > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
> <neil.trump@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up
> having on-line
> > > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are
> all 'grown
> > > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible.
> However if
> > > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others
> do the
> > > same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark
> debate,
> > > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel
> that others
> > > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > > >
> > > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared
> with facts if
> > > possible and any information at hand to back up their argument,
> especially when
> > > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing
> or can be
> > > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument
> and avoid
> > > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need
> to be
> > > reminded of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Moderator
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I
> don't think
> > > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism
> to have the
> > > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
> criticizing. If they
> > > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the
> forum" so as to
> > > not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
> <neil.trump@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
> accordingly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people
> directly?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my
> comment.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
> > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you
> mean to
> > > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's
> Research for
> > > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their
> answers by
> > > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality"
> issue? Thank
> > > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions,
> naturally
> > > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on
> with a
> > > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more
> "proof" in the
> > > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research.
> Stir up
> > > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to
> support their
> > > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research,
> often into
> > > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

...And you are WELL within your rights to do such things, aren't you?

--- In , "asphodellynwormwood" <asphodellynwormwood@...> wrote:
>
> I fully intend to ignore comments from certain posters on this list.
> I joined this list to learn, not to be insulted by anyone wanting to
> pick arguments with everyone. I'm one step away from saying good-bye and
> good riddance. The list was enjoyable and informative before this latest
> flame war erupted. I'm disgusted with it.
>
> Linda
> --- In , "warrenmalach"
> <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > Fine! No one was trying to establish a "rule" in this matter. And as
> for anyone trying to "rescue" you from your belief, who is trying to do
> so? See what's highlighted below for the reason behind this comment.
> >
> > --- In , "asphodellynwormwood"
> asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I have done the exact opposite and view my change as 'refining',
> too.
> > > Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.
> > >
> > > Linda
> > > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who were
> > > drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been "refined"
> as
> > > we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Karen Clark
> > > Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in my
> > > teens, but
> > > > > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have
> challenged
> > > someone to
> > > > > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews.
> Now,
> > > not so
> > > > > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable number
> of)
> > > years ago,
> > > > > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his
> family,
> > > and now I
> > > > > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I don't
> > > really want
> > > > > any.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples'
> > > attraction to
> > > > > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
> > > interest in
> > > > > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have
> already
> > > posted
> > > > > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to
> Richard,
> > > based
> > > > > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical
> > > treatment.
> > > > > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have
> others
> > > had a
> > > > > similar experience?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ricard1an"
> > > > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story
> is
> > > that we do
> > > > > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out
> there
> > > but we still
> > > > > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago
> > > during a meeting
> > > > > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of
> > > Birmingham asked
> > > > > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed
> the
> > > Princes, no
> > > > > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill
> the
> > > Princes, same
> > > > > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so
> > > therefore we
> > > > > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address
> the
> > > issues
> > > > > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as
> she
> > > can for
> > > > > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short
> > > reign. Annette
> > > > > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into
> > > account R.E
> > > > > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's
> > > excellent
> > > > > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The
> > > Deceivers" also
> > > > > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret
> Beaufort
> > > was up to
> > > > > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly
> what.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum
> and
> > > continue to
> > > > > research for any evidence that we can of what happened during
> > > Richard's reign.
> > > > > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of
> Eastwell,
> > > was he
> > > > > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even
> Edward's
> > > illegimate
> > > > > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles
> > > murder Edward IV
> > > > > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
> > > Woodville was
> > > > > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward
> Woodville
> > > take the
> > > > > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was
> there a
> > > tradition in
> > > > > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih
> her
> > > two sons by
> > > > > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley
> control
> > > over his wife
> > > > > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did
> Richard
> > > give them a
> > > > > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be
> > > answered before
> > > > > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
> > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to end
> up
> > > having on-line
> > > > > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We
> are
> > > all 'grown
> > > > > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible.
> > > However if
> > > > > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when
> others
> > > do the
> > > > > same. Please take into account also that being subjective will
> spark
> > > debate,
> > > > > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and
> feel
> > > that others
> > > > > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be
> prepared
> > > with facts if
> > > > > possible and any information at hand to back up their argument,
> > > especially when
> > > > > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is
> missing
> > > or can be
> > > > > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the
> argument
> > > and avoid
> > > > > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not
> need
> > > to be
> > > > > reminded of this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moderator
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I
> > > don't think
> > > > > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the
> criticism
> > > to have the
> > > > > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
> > > criticizing. If they
> > > > > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the
> > > forum" so as to
> > > > > not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil Trump
> > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
> > > accordingly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people
> > > directly?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "oregon_katy"
> > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore
> my
> > > comment.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "warrenmalach"
> > > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom
> you
> > > mean to
> > > > > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's
> > > Research for
> > > > > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for
> their
> > > answers by
> > > > > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a
> "personality"
> > > issue? Thank
> > > > > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "oregon_katy"
> > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with
> questions,
> > > naturally
> > > > > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and
> on
> > > with a
> > > > > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and
> more
> > > "proof" in the
> > > > > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's
> Research.
> > > Stir up
> > > > > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to
> > > support their
> > > > > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of
> research,
> > > often into
> > > > > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

With great sadness as I really do wish to learn more about Richard
III and this time frame, but do not have the time to wade through
pointless posts filling my inbox that contribute nothing to my learning.

Good-bye

Linda
--- In , "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> ...And you are WELL within your rights to do such things, aren't you?
>
> --- In , "asphodellynwormwood"
asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> >
> > I fully intend to ignore comments from certain posters on this
list.
> > I joined this list to learn, not to be insulted by anyone wanting to
> > pick arguments with everyone. I'm one step away from saying good-bye
and
> > good riddance. The list was enjoyable and informative before this
latest
> > flame war erupted. I'm disgusted with it.
> >
> > Linda
> > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fine! No one was trying to establish a "rule" in this matter.
And as
> > for anyone trying to "rescue" you from your belief, who is trying to
do
> > so? See what's highlighted below for the reason behind this
comment.
> > >
> > > --- In ,
"asphodellynwormwood"
> > asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have done the exact opposite and view my change as
'refining',
> > too.
> > > > Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.
> > > >
> > > > Linda
> > > > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who
were
> > > > drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been
"refined"
> > as
> > > > we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Karen Clark
> > > > Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in
my
> > > > teens, but
> > > > > > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have
> > challenged
> > > > someone to
> > > > > > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews.
> > Now,
> > > > not so
> > > > > > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable
number
> > of)
> > > > years ago,
> > > > > > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his
> > family,
> > > > and now I
> > > > > > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I
don't
> > > > really want
> > > > > > any.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if
peoples'
> > > > attraction to
> > > > > > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
> > > > interest in
> > > > > > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have
> > already
> > > > posted
> > > > > > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to
> > Richard,
> > > > based
> > > > > > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan"
historical
> > > > treatment.
> > > > > > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have
> > others
> > > > had a
> > > > > > similar experience?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"ricard1an"
> > > > > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's
story
> > is
> > > > that we do
> > > > > > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out
> > there
> > > > but we still
> > > > > > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years
ago
> > > > during a meeting
> > > > > > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University
of
> > > > Birmingham asked
> > > > > > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had
killed
> > the
> > > > Princes, no
> > > > > > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not
kill
> > the
> > > > Princes, same
> > > > > > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know
definitely so
> > > > therefore we
> > > > > > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to
address
> > the
> > > > issues
> > > > > > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much
as
> > she
> > > > can for
> > > > > > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his
short
> > > > reign. Annette
> > > > > > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes
into
> > > > account R.E
> > > > > > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown
Hill's
> > > > excellent
> > > > > > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book "
The
> > > > Deceivers" also
> > > > > > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret
> > Beaufort
> > > > was up to
> > > > > > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to
exactly
> > what.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this
forum
> > and
> > > > continue to
> > > > > > research for any evidence that we can of what happened
during
> > > > Richard's reign.
> > > > > > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of
> > Eastwell,
> > > > was he
> > > > > > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even
> > Edward's
> > > > illegimate
> > > > > > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the
Woodvilles
> > > > murder Edward IV
> > > > > > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
> > > > Woodville was
> > > > > > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward
> > Woodville
> > > > take the
> > > > > > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was
> > there a
> > > > tradition in
> > > > > > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping
wih
> > her
> > > > two sons by
> > > > > > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley
> > control
> > > > over his wife
> > > > > > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did
> > Richard
> > > > give them a
> > > > > > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to
be
> > > > answered before
> > > > > > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
Trump
> > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to
end
> > up
> > > > having on-line
> > > > > > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me.
We
> > are
> > > > all 'grown
> > > > > > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as
possible.
> > > > However if
> > > > > > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it
when
> > others
> > > > do the
> > > > > > same. Please take into account also that being subjective
will
> > spark
> > > > debate,
> > > > > > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective
and
> > feel
> > > > that others
> > > > > > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be
> > prepared
> > > > with facts if
> > > > > > possible and any information at hand to back up their
argument,
> > > > especially when
> > > > > > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is
> > missing
> > > > or can be
> > > > > > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the
> > argument
> > > > and avoid
> > > > > > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do
not
> > need
> > > > to be
> > > > > > reminded of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Moderator
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized,
but I
> > > > don't think
> > > > > > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the
> > criticism
> > > > to have the
> > > > > > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
> > > > criticizing. If they
> > > > > > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of
the
> > > > forum" so as to
> > > > > > not cause problems. My email address is available upon
request!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
Trump
> > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
> > > > accordingly.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize
people
> > > > directly?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "oregon_katy"
> > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise,
ignore
> > my
> > > > comment.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "warrenmalach"
> > > > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person
whom
> > you
> > > > mean to
> > > > > > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other
People's
> > > > Research for
> > > > > > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for
> > their
> > > > answers by
> > > > > > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a
> > "personality"
> > > > issue? Thank
> > > > > > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "oregon_katy"
> > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with
> > questions,
> > > > naturally
> > > > > > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on
and
> > on
> > > > with a
> > > > > > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and
> > more
> > > > "proof" in the
> > > > > > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's
> > Research.
> > > > Stir up
> > > > > > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse
to
> > > > support their
> > > > > > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of
> > research,
> > > > often into
> > > > > > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Sorry you won't stay and uphold your viewpoint. Come back again sometime!

--- In , "asphodellynwormwood" <asphodellynwormwood@...> wrote:
>
> With great sadness as I really do wish to learn more about Richard
> III and this time frame, but do not have the time to wade through
> pointless posts filling my inbox that contribute nothing to my learning.
>
> Good-bye
>
> Linda
> --- In , "warrenmalach"
> <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > ...And you are WELL within your rights to do such things, aren't you?
> >
> > --- In , "asphodellynwormwood"
> asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I fully intend to ignore comments from certain posters on this
> list.
> > > I joined this list to learn, not to be insulted by anyone wanting to
> > > pick arguments with everyone. I'm one step away from saying good-bye
> and
> > > good riddance. The list was enjoyable and informative before this
> latest
> > > flame war erupted. I'm disgusted with it.
> > >
> > > Linda
> > > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Fine! No one was trying to establish a "rule" in this matter.
> And as
> > > for anyone trying to "rescue" you from your belief, who is trying to
> do
> > > so? See what's highlighted below for the reason behind this
> comment.
> > > >
> > > > --- In ,
> "asphodellynwormwood"
> > > asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have done the exact opposite and view my change as
> 'refining',
> > > too.
> > > > > Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.
> > > > >
> > > > > Linda
> > > > > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who
> were
> > > > > drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been
> "refined"
> > > as
> > > > > we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Karen Clark
> > > > > Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in
> my
> > > > > teens, but
> > > > > > > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have
> > > challenged
> > > > > someone to
> > > > > > > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews.
> > > Now,
> > > > > not so
> > > > > > > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable
> number
> > > of)
> > > > > years ago,
> > > > > > > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his
> > > family,
> > > > > and now I
> > > > > > > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I
> don't
> > > > > really want
> > > > > > > any.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Karen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if
> peoples'
> > > > > attraction to
> > > > > > > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
> > > > > interest in
> > > > > > > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have
> > > already
> > > > > posted
> > > > > > > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to
> > > Richard,
> > > > > based
> > > > > > > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan"
> historical
> > > > > treatment.
> > > > > > > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have
> > > others
> > > > > had a
> > > > > > > similar experience?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "ricard1an"
> > > > > > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's
> story
> > > is
> > > > > that we do
> > > > > > > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out
> > > there
> > > > > but we still
> > > > > > > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years
> ago
> > > > > during a meeting
> > > > > > > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University
> of
> > > > > Birmingham asked
> > > > > > > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had
> killed
> > > the
> > > > > Princes, no
> > > > > > > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not
> kill
> > > the
> > > > > Princes, same
> > > > > > > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know
> definitely so
> > > > > therefore we
> > > > > > > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to
> address
> > > the
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much
> as
> > > she
> > > > > can for
> > > > > > > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his
> short
> > > > > reign. Annette
> > > > > > > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes
> into
> > > > > account R.E
> > > > > > > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown
> Hill's
> > > > > excellent
> > > > > > > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book "
> The
> > > > > Deceivers" also
> > > > > > > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret
> > > Beaufort
> > > > > was up to
> > > > > > > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to
> exactly
> > > what.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this
> forum
> > > and
> > > > > continue to
> > > > > > > research for any evidence that we can of what happened
> during
> > > > > Richard's reign.
> > > > > > > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of
> > > Eastwell,
> > > > > was he
> > > > > > > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even
> > > Edward's
> > > > > illegimate
> > > > > > > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the
> Woodvilles
> > > > > murder Edward IV
> > > > > > > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
> > > > > Woodville was
> > > > > > > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward
> > > Woodville
> > > > > take the
> > > > > > > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was
> > > there a
> > > > > tradition in
> > > > > > > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping
> wih
> > > her
> > > > > two sons by
> > > > > > > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley
> > > control
> > > > > over his wife
> > > > > > > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did
> > > Richard
> > > > > give them a
> > > > > > > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to
> be
> > > > > answered before
> > > > > > > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
> Trump
> > > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to
> end
> > > up
> > > > > having on-line
> > > > > > > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me.
> We
> > > are
> > > > > all 'grown
> > > > > > > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as
> possible.
> > > > > However if
> > > > > > > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it
> when
> > > others
> > > > > do the
> > > > > > > same. Please take into account also that being subjective
> will
> > > spark
> > > > > debate,
> > > > > > > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective
> and
> > > feel
> > > > > that others
> > > > > > > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be
> > > prepared
> > > > > with facts if
> > > > > > > possible and any information at hand to back up their
> argument,
> > > > > especially when
> > > > > > > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is
> > > missing
> > > > > or can be
> > > > > > > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the
> > > argument
> > > > > and avoid
> > > > > > > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do
> not
> > > need
> > > > > to be
> > > > > > > reminded of this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Moderator
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized,
> but I
> > > > > don't think
> > > > > > > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the
> > > criticism
> > > > > to have the
> > > > > > > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
> > > > > criticizing. If they
> > > > > > > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of
> the
> > > > > forum" so as to
> > > > > > > not cause problems. My email address is available upon
> request!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
> Trump
> > > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
> > > > > accordingly.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach"
> <warrenmalach@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize
> people
> > > > > directly?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "oregon_katy"
> > > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise,
> ignore
> > > my
> > > > > comment.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "warrenmalach"
> > > > > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person
> whom
> > > you
> > > > > mean to
> > > > > > > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other
> People's
> > > > > Research for
> > > > > > > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for
> > > their
> > > > > answers by
> > > > > > > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a
> > > "personality"
> > > > > issue? Thank
> > > > > > > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "oregon_katy"
> > > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with
> > > questions,
> > > > > naturally
> > > > > > > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on
> and
> > > on
> > > > > with a
> > > > > > > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and
> > > more
> > > > > "proof" in the
> > > > > > > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's
> > > Research.
> > > > > Stir up
> > > > > > > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse
> to
> > > > > support their
> > > > > > > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of
> > > research,
> > > > > often into
> > > > > > > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Hang on in there, Linda. We can still talk when all this is over.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: asphodellynwormwood
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....



With great sadness as I really do wish to learn more about Richard
III and this time frame, but do not have the time to wade through
pointless posts filling my inbox that contribute nothing to my learning.

Good-bye

Linda
--- In , "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> ...And you are WELL within your rights to do such things, aren't you?
>
> --- In , "asphodellynwormwood"
asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> >
> > I fully intend to ignore comments from certain posters on this
list.
> > I joined this list to learn, not to be insulted by anyone wanting to
> > pick arguments with everyone. I'm one step away from saying good-bye
and
> > good riddance. The list was enjoyable and informative before this
latest
> > flame war erupted. I'm disgusted with it.
> >
> > Linda
> > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fine! No one was trying to establish a "rule" in this matter.
And as
> > for anyone trying to "rescue" you from your belief, who is trying to
do
> > so? See what's highlighted below for the reason behind this
comment.
> > >
> > > --- In ,
"asphodellynwormwood"
> > asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have done the exact opposite and view my change as
'refining',
> > too.
> > > > Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.
> > > >
> > > > Linda
> > > > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who
were
> > > > drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been
"refined"
> > as
> > > > we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Karen Clark
> > > > Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in
my
> > > > teens, but
> > > > > > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have
> > challenged
> > > > someone to
> > > > > > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews.
> > Now,
> > > > not so
> > > > > > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable
number
> > of)
> > > > years ago,
> > > > > > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his
> > family,
> > > > and now I
> > > > > > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I
don't
> > > > really want
> > > > > > any.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if
peoples'
> > > > attraction to
> > > > > > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
> > > > interest in
> > > > > > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have
> > already
> > > > posted
> > > > > > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to
> > Richard,
> > > > based
> > > > > > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan"
historical
> > > > treatment.
> > > > > > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have
> > others
> > > > had a
> > > > > > similar experience?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"ricard1an"
> > > > > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's
story
> > is
> > > > that we do
> > > > > > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out
> > there
> > > > but we still
> > > > > > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years
ago
> > > > during a meeting
> > > > > > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University
of
> > > > Birmingham asked
> > > > > > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had
killed
> > the
> > > > Princes, no
> > > > > > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not
kill
> > the
> > > > Princes, same
> > > > > > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know
definitely so
> > > > therefore we
> > > > > > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to
address
> > the
> > > > issues
> > > > > > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much
as
> > she
> > > > can for
> > > > > > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his
short
> > > > reign. Annette
> > > > > > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes
into
> > > > account R.E
> > > > > > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown
Hill's
> > > > excellent
> > > > > > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book "
The
> > > > Deceivers" also
> > > > > > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret
> > Beaufort
> > > > was up to
> > > > > > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to
exactly
> > what.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this
forum
> > and
> > > > continue to
> > > > > > research for any evidence that we can of what happened
during
> > > > Richard's reign.
> > > > > > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of
> > Eastwell,
> > > > was he
> > > > > > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even
> > Edward's
> > > > illegimate
> > > > > > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the
Woodvilles
> > > > murder Edward IV
> > > > > > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
> > > > Woodville was
> > > > > > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward
> > Woodville
> > > > take the
> > > > > > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was
> > there a
> > > > tradition in
> > > > > > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping
wih
> > her
> > > > two sons by
> > > > > > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley
> > control
> > > > over his wife
> > > > > > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did
> > Richard
> > > > give them a
> > > > > > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to
be
> > > > answered before
> > > > > > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
Trump
> > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to
end
> > up
> > > > having on-line
> > > > > > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me.
We
> > are
> > > > all 'grown
> > > > > > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as
possible.
> > > > However if
> > > > > > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it
when
> > others
> > > > do the
> > > > > > same. Please take into account also that being subjective
will
> > spark
> > > > debate,
> > > > > > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective
and
> > feel
> > > > that others
> > > > > > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be
> > prepared
> > > > with facts if
> > > > > > possible and any information at hand to back up their
argument,
> > > > especially when
> > > > > > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is
> > missing
> > > > or can be
> > > > > > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the
> > argument
> > > > and avoid
> > > > > > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do
not
> > need
> > > > to be
> > > > > > reminded of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Moderator
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized,
but I
> > > > don't think
> > > > > > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the
> > criticism
> > > > to have the
> > > > > > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
> > > > criticizing. If they
> > > > > > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of
the
> > > > forum" so as to
> > > > > > not cause problems. My email address is available upon
request!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
Trump
> > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
> > > > accordingly.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize
people
> > > > directly?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "oregon_katy"
> > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise,
ignore
> > my
> > > > comment.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "warrenmalach"
> > > > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person
whom
> > you
> > > > mean to
> > > > > > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other
People's
> > > > Research for
> > > > > > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for
> > their
> > > > answers by
> > > > > > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a
> > "personality"
> > > > issue? Thank
> > > > > > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "oregon_katy"
> > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with
> > questions,
> > > > naturally
> > > > > > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on
and
> > on
> > > > with a
> > > > > > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and
> > more
> > > > "proof" in the
> > > > > > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's
> > Research.
> > > > Stir up
> > > > > > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse
to
> > > > support their
> > > > > > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of
> > research,
> > > > often into
> > > > > > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Oh, I wish I'd kept my trap shut now. Sorry if what I said contributed to any bad feeling. It wasn't my intention at all. As I said, I have a quiet (almost completely silent on this forum ) interest in this subject though lacking the time currently to do much work on it myself. Being here keeps me 'in the loop'.
. I, too. was a Ricardian 'teenybopper' and I think that the pendulum swung too far suggesting Richard was the perfect, gentle knight who never did or thought a bad thing. Totally understandable considering the bad press he'd had for centuries.

Personally, I don't think Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews but I'm not dogmatic about it and it wouldn't alter my opinion of him much even if he had.

What makes this whole thing so fascinating and so frustrating is what we don't know and can never know. It's what keeps drawing me back in time after time.

--- On Mon, 30/7/12, asphodellynwormwood <asphodellynwormwood@...> wrote:

From: asphodellynwormwood <asphodellynwormwood@...>
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
To:
Date: Monday, 30 July, 2012, 5:26

With great sadness as I really do wish to learn more about Richard
III and this time frame, but do not have the time to wade through
pointless posts filling my inbox that contribute nothing to my learning.

   Good-bye

   Linda
>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Once again, Annette, you talk as if there will be a time when those who
don't entirely agree with you will be silenced. Why not, instead, just
embrace the idea that there are many different ways that members of the
Richard III Society see Richard III? And that not everyone who thinks him
somewhat less than perfect is a hater, or a flamer or a diehard fan of Henry
VII? Ease up a bit, stop being so hostile to people who don't utterly fall
into your way of thinking and engage in the conversation. That's all I'm
trying to do. That's all I've ever tried to do.

Karen

From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:35:19 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Excuse me, but....






Hang on in there, Linda. We can still talk when all this is over.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: asphodellynwormwood
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....

With great sadness as I really do wish to learn more about Richard
III and this time frame, but do not have the time to wade through
pointless posts filling my inbox that contribute nothing to my learning.

Good-bye

Linda
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> ...And you are WELL within your rights to do such things, aren't you?
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "asphodellynwormwood"
asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> >
> > I fully intend to ignore comments from certain posters on this
list.
> > I joined this list to learn, not to be insulted by anyone wanting to
> > pick arguments with everyone. I'm one step away from saying good-bye
and
> > good riddance. The list was enjoyable and informative before this
latest
> > flame war erupted. I'm disgusted with it.
> >
> > Linda
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
> > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fine! No one was trying to establish a "rule" in this matter.
And as
> > for anyone trying to "rescue" you from your belief, who is trying to
do
> > so? See what's highlighted below for the reason behind this
comment.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"asphodellynwormwood"
> > asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have done the exact opposite and view my change as
'refining',
> > too.
> > > > Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.
> > > >
> > > > Linda
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "warrenmalach"
> > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who
were
> > > > drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been
"refined"
> > as
> > > > we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in
my
> > > > teens, but
> > > > > > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have
> > challenged
> > > > someone to
> > > > > > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews.
> > Now,
> > > > not so
> > > > > > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable
number
> > of)
> > > > years ago,
> > > > > > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his
> > family,
> > > > and now I
> > > > > > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I
don't
> > > > really want
> > > > > > any.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > > > > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if
peoples'
> > > > attraction to
> > > > > > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
> > > > interest in
> > > > > > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have
> > already
> > > > posted
> > > > > > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to
> > Richard,
> > > > based
> > > > > > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan"
historical
> > > > treatment.
> > > > > > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have
> > others
> > > > had a
> > > > > > similar experience?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"ricard1an"
> > > > > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's
story
> > is
> > > > that we do
> > > > > > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out
> > there
> > > > but we still
> > > > > > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years
ago
> > > > during a meeting
> > > > > > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University
of
> > > > Birmingham asked
> > > > > > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had
killed
> > the
> > > > Princes, no
> > > > > > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not
kill
> > the
> > > > Princes, same
> > > > > > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know
definitely so
> > > > therefore we
> > > > > > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to
address
> > the
> > > > issues
> > > > > > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much
as
> > she
> > > > can for
> > > > > > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his
short
> > > > reign. Annette
> > > > > > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes
into
> > > > account R.E
> > > > > > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown
Hill's
> > > > excellent
> > > > > > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book "
The
> > > > Deceivers" also
> > > > > > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret
> > Beaufort
> > > > was up to
> > > > > > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to
exactly
> > what.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this
forum
> > and
> > > > continue to
> > > > > > research for any evidence that we can of what happened
during
> > > > Richard's reign.
> > > > > > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of
> > Eastwell,
> > > > was he
> > > > > > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even
> > Edward's
> > > > illegimate
> > > > > > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the
Woodvilles
> > > > murder Edward IV
> > > > > > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
> > > > Woodville was
> > > > > > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward
> > Woodville
> > > > take the
> > > > > > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was
> > there a
> > > > tradition in
> > > > > > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping
wih
> > her
> > > > two sons by
> > > > > > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley
> > control
> > > > over his wife
> > > > > > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did
> > Richard
> > > > give them a
> > > > > > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to
be
> > > > answered before
> > > > > > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
Trump
> > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to
end
> > up
> > > > having on-line
> > > > > > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me.
We
> > are
> > > > all 'grown
> > > > > > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as
possible.
> > > > However if
> > > > > > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it
when
> > others
> > > > do the
> > > > > > same. Please take into account also that being subjective
will
> > spark
> > > > debate,
> > > > > > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective
and
> > feel
> > > > that others
> > > > > > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be
> > prepared
> > > > with facts if
> > > > > > possible and any information at hand to back up their
argument,
> > > > especially when
> > > > > > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is
> > missing
> > > > or can be
> > > > > > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the
> > argument
> > > > and avoid
> > > > > > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do
not
> > need
> > > > to be
> > > > > > reminded of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Moderator
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized,
but I
> > > > don't think
> > > > > > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the
> > criticism
> > > > to have the
> > > > > > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
> > > > criticizing. If they
> > > > > > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of
the
> > > > forum" so as to
> > > > > > not cause problems. My email address is available upon
request!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
Trump
> > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
> > > > accordingly.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize
people
> > > > directly?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "oregon_katy"
> > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise,
ignore
> > my
> > > > comment.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "warrenmalach"
> > > > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person
whom
> > you
> > > > mean to
> > > > > > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other
People's
> > > > Research for
> > > > > > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for
> > their
> > > > answers by
> > > > > > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a
> > "personality"
> > > > issue? Thank
> > > > > > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "oregon_katy"
> > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with
> > questions,
> > > > naturally
> > > > > > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on
and
> > on
> > > > with a
> > > > > > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and
> > more
> > > > "proof" in the
> > > > > > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's
> > Research.
> > > > Stir up
> > > > > > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse
to
> > > > support their
> > > > > > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of
> > research,
> > > > often into
> > > > > > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

If any member has a problem that they feel is not warranted in a reply and sees it as an attack or criticism that they don't like, then they can come to me and we'll go down some form of arbitration process, rather than being nasty and vindictive. 
 
If this does not appeal to anyone then the options become limited.
 
My email if you want to contact me is neil.ttrump@...  you will have to take the second t out of my name, hopefully stops the bots harvesting names.  I am at work at a reply may take time to respond.
 
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 1:21
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....


 
And how are members of the forum to respond to attacks and criticism, even when "indirect"?

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
>
> I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
>
>
> With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
>
> Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
>
> If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Moderator
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > >
> > > WARNING
> > >
> > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Forum Moderator
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

well, all i can say is hold on linda. i have spent the last year deleting posts mainly celebrating yet another nomination or award (with follow up kudos) for a space age r3 book. the only thing i have learned is that self promotion is important in the book industry.
 
i have asked several times if anyone has access to pearl kibre's writing about dr. lewis caerleon. the result is dead silence and white space.
 
the article is available via jstor (my library does not have a subscription) or the full book, Studies in Medieval Science: Alchemy, Astrology, Mathematics and Medicine, of which i need access to ch.15.
 
and quite frankly i am enjoying the spirited dialogue and sharing of information. yes, much of it is redundant for many members of the forum. but, there are new members that come on board, and there is nothing like a refresher course for all of us.
 
moreover, it gives an opportunity for some to showcase their knowledge and help others in their research. diverse opinions keep the forum from being bland.
 
roslyn

--- On Mon, 7/30/12, asphodellynwormwood <asphodellynwormwood@...> wrote:


From: asphodellynwormwood <asphodellynwormwood@...>
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 12:26 AM



 



With great sadness as I really do wish to learn more about Richard
III and this time frame, but do not have the time to wade through
pointless posts filling my inbox that contribute nothing to my learning.

Good-bye

Linda
--- In , "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> ...And you are WELL within your rights to do such things, aren't you?
>
> --- In , "asphodellynwormwood"
asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> >
> > I fully intend to ignore comments from certain posters on this
list.
> > I joined this list to learn, not to be insulted by anyone wanting to
> > pick arguments with everyone. I'm one step away from saying good-bye
and
> > good riddance. The list was enjoyable and informative before this
latest
> > flame war erupted. I'm disgusted with it.
> >
> > Linda
> > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fine! No one was trying to establish a "rule" in this matter.
And as
> > for anyone trying to "rescue" you from your belief, who is trying to
do
> > so? See what's highlighted below for the reason behind this
comment.
> > >
> > > --- In ,
"asphodellynwormwood"
> > asphodellynwormwood@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have done the exact opposite and view my change as
'refining',
> > too.
> > > > Nor do I really want anyone to 'rescue' me from that belief.
> > > >
> > > > Linda
> > > > --- In , "warrenmalach"
> > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Karen! I suspect that we aren't the ONLY people who
were
> > > > drawn to Richard when young, and whose opinions have been
"refined"
> > as
> > > > we aged. Richard may not have changed, but we have...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Karen Clark
> > > > Ragged_staff@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly have, warren! I was all fluffy about Richard in
my
> > > > teens, but
> > > > > > the more I read the less fluffy I got. At 16, I'd have
> > challenged
> > > > someone to
> > > > > > a duel for daring to suggest that Richard offed his nephews.
> > Now,
> > > > not so
> > > > > > much. My focus has shifted as well. Some (considerable
number
> > of)
> > > > years ago,
> > > > > > I was drawn into the orbit of the Earl of Warwick and his
> > family,
> > > > and now I
> > > > > > find it impossible to break free. I'd call for help, but I
don't
> > > > really want
> > > > > > any.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:52 -0000
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if
peoples'
> > > > attraction to
> > > > > > Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective
> > > > interest in
> > > > > > determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have
> > already
> > > > posted
> > > > > > that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to
> > Richard,
> > > > based
> > > > > > upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan"
historical
> > > > treatment.
> > > > > > Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have
> > others
> > > > had a
> > > > > > similar experience?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"ricard1an"
> > > > > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's
story
> > is
> > > > that we do
> > > > > > not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out
> > there
> > > > but we still
> > > > > > don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years
ago
> > > > during a meeting
> > > > > > of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University
of
> > > > Birmingham asked
> > > > > > people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had
killed
> > the
> > > > Princes, no
> > > > > > one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not
kill
> > the
> > > > Princes, same
> > > > > > response. The conclusion being that we didn't know
definitely so
> > > > therefore we
> > > > > > couldn't say one way or the other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to
address
> > the
> > > > issues
> > > > > > because she is doing the right thing by researching as much
as
> > she
> > > > can for
> > > > > > evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his
short
> > > > reign. Annette
> > > > > > also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes
into
> > > > account R.E
> > > > > > COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown
Hill's
> > > > excellent
> > > > > > "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book "
The
> > > > Deceivers" also
> > > > > > should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret
> > Beaufort
> > > > was up to
> > > > > > something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to
exactly
> > what.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this
forum
> > and
> > > > continue to
> > > > > > research for any evidence that we can of what happened
during
> > > > Richard's reign.
> > > > > > We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of
> > Eastwell,
> > > > was he
> > > > > > Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even
> > Edward's
> > > > illegimate
> > > > > > children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the
Woodvilles
> > > > murder Edward IV
> > > > > > as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony
> > > > Woodville was
> > > > > > certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward
> > Woodville
> > > > take the
> > > > > > treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was
> > there a
> > > > tradition in
> > > > > > the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping
wih
> > her
> > > > two sons by
> > > > > > permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley
> > control
> > > > over his wife
> > > > > > after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did
> > Richard
> > > > give them a
> > > > > > prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to
be
> > > > answered before
> > > > > > anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
Trump
> > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could see that there was the potential for people to
end
> > up
> > > > having on-line
> > > > > > personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me.
We
> > are
> > > > all 'grown
> > > > > > ups' and should behave as such.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as
possible.
> > > > However if
> > > > > > people are going to be subjective, they should accept it
when
> > others
> > > > do the
> > > > > > same. Please take into account also that being subjective
will
> > spark
> > > > debate,
> > > > > > which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective
and
> > feel
> > > > that others
> > > > > > must agree, because they probably won't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be
> > prepared
> > > > with facts if
> > > > > > possible and any information at hand to back up their
argument,
> > > > especially when
> > > > > > dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is
> > missing
> > > > or can be
> > > > > > interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the
> > argument
> > > > and avoid
> > > > > > any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do
not
> > need
> > > > to be
> > > > > > reminded of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Moderator
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized,
but I
> > > > don't think
> > > > > > that it's asking too much to expect the person making the
> > criticism
> > > > to have the
> > > > > > integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are
> > > > criticizing. If they
> > > > > > have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of
the
> > > > forum" so as to
> > > > > > not cause problems. My email address is available upon
request!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Neil
Trump
> > > > <neil.trump@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > WARNING
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond
> > > > accordingly.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach"
<warrenmalach@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize
people
> > > > directly?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "oregon_katy"
> > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise,
ignore
> > my
> > > > comment.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "warrenmalach"
> > > > > > <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person
whom
> > you
> > > > mean to
> > > > > > criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other
People's
> > > > Research for
> > > > > > their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for
> > their
> > > > answers by
> > > > > > refraining from asking further questions? Is this a
> > "personality"
> > > > issue? Thank
> > > > > > you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "oregon_katy"
> > > > <oregon_katy@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with
> > questions,
> > > > naturally
> > > > > > people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on
and
> > on
> > > > with a
> > > > > > contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and
> > more
> > > > "proof" in the
> > > > > > answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's
> > Research.
> > > > Stir up
> > > > > > knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse
to
> > > > support their
> > > > > > views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of
> > research,
> > > > often into
> > > > > > sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

as a person with a life long interest in richard and the mystery of the princes in the tower, i have learned a great deal to verify and dispell the errors in the traditional opinion of king richard.
since 1995, i have been a serious researcher on the story of richard.
for the most part the accusations regarding richard are easily proven as false.
 
richard was not a saint, but he certainly was not the monster protrayed by more, shakespeare and other tudor propagandists. i have received help from several members of the forum to help correct or redirect or even further my research. i've also provided information to others who are seeking answers and verification.
 
i've encountered distain and ridicule and sometimes a complete shut down of communciation as well as dogpiling that appeared directed to shut down an avenue of research.
 
i've asked questions that opinions and off the cuff answers were given. most recently it was regarding why so many changes in the date of the coronation of e5. while i was given "traditional" reasons, i was not provided with the assorted dates and the number of postponements. there was no serious questioning or dialogue of the reasons why the changes.
 
going from memory, i think there was even a proposal of the era, suggesting that e5 be crowned as late as november 1483.
 
most of us know that effective june 22/23, 1483 that e5 would never be crowned. until we can verify all the activities of the key players from the death of e4 to r3's acceptance by the councils as the rightful king there will always be questions and doubts.
 
and then the events after june 1483, especially during july and august 1483 leave a great many questions unanswered. my goal is and will always be to get as much verification as possible in the months just prior to r3's reign to the end of it, plus the era of lies historians created during the tudor reign and beyond.
 
in the meantime, i'm having a grand time learning, sharing and verifying.
 
so long answer short, yes i have refined, and redefined my opinion of richard from both a subjective and objective viewpoint. the journey has taken me from e3 through to 1674 and sometimes beyond.
 
roslyn

--- On Sun, 7/29/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:


From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
To:
Received: Sunday, July 29, 2012, 8:36 PM



 



I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples' attraction to Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective interest in determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have already posted that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to Richard, based upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical treatment. Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have others had a similar experience?

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is that we do not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there but we still don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago during a meeting of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of Birmingham asked people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the Princes, no one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the Princes, same response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so therefore we couldn't say one way or the other.
>
> Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the issues because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she can for evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short reign. Annette also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into account R.E COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's excellent "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The Deceivers" also should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort was up to something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
>
> I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and continue to research for any evidence that we can of what happened during Richard's reign. We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell, was he Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's illegimate children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles murder Edward IV as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony Woodville was certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville take the treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a tradition in the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her two sons by permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control over his wife after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard give them a prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be answered before anyone can say Richard did
or did not murder the Princes.
>
> --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
> >
> >
> > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> >
> > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
> >
> > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > >
> > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING
> > > >
> > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Forum Moderator
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I have recently signed up for my own, free JSTOR account. The starting
page is at:

https://www.jstor.org/action/showLogin?redirectUri=%2F

I can't find anything starting 'Medieval', which probably just means
that I don't know my way around yet...

On 30/07/2012 13:45, fayre rose wrote:
>
> i have asked several times if anyone has access to pearl kibre's writing about dr. lewis caerleon. the result is dead silence and white space.
>
> the article is available via jstor (my library does not have a subscription) or the full book, Studies in Medieval Science: Alchemy, Astrology, Mathematics and Medicine, of which i need access to ch.15.
>
>

--
Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

Well said, Katherine! We can't control how other people choose to respond to posts in this forum, so we don't have to take responsibility for their actions, as long as we haven't attacked them (directly or indirectly.)

--- In , KATHERINE MICHAUD <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, I wish I'd kept my trap shut now. Sorry if what I said contributed to any bad feeling. It wasn't my intention at all. As I said, I have a quiet (almost completely silent on this forum ) interest in this subject though lacking the time currently to do much work on it myself. Being here keeps me 'in the loop'.
> . I, too. was a Ricardian 'teenybopper' and I think that the pendulum swung too far suggesting Richard was the perfect, gentle knight who never did or thought a bad thing. Totally understandable considering the bad press he'd had for centuries.
>
> Personally, I don't think Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews but I'm not dogmatic about it and it wouldn't alter my opinion of him much even if he had.
>
> What makes this whole thing so fascinating and so frustrating is what we don't know and can never know. It's what keeps drawing me back in time after time.
>
> --- On Mon, 30/7/12, asphodellynwormwood <asphodellynwormwood@...> wrote:
>
> From: asphodellynwormwood <asphodellynwormwood@...>
> Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> To:
> Date: Monday, 30 July, 2012, 5:26
>
> With great sadness as I really do wish to learn more about Richard
> III and this time frame, but do not have the time to wade through
> pointless posts filling my inbox that contribute nothing to my learning.
>
>    Good-bye
>
>    Linda
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Neill! For myself, I will apologize again for not knowing the geography of England well enough to avoid the mistake of referring to it as Richard's "northern" progress in 1483. I won't apologize for daring to assert that Richard might have been responsible for the disappeance and deaths of the Princes, because I believe that the historical facts admit to the possibility of such a conclusion.

--- In , NEIL TRUMP <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
> If any member has a problem that they feel is not warranted in a reply and sees it as an attack or criticism that they don't like, then they can come to me and we'll go down some form of arbitration process, rather than being nasty and vindictive. 
>  
> If this does not appeal to anyone then the options become limited.
>  
> My email if you want to contact me is neil.ttrump@...  you will have to take the second t out of my name, hopefully stops the bots harvesting names.  I am at work at a reply may take time to respond.
>  
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 1:21
> Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
>
>
>  
> And how are members of the forum to respond to attacks and criticism, even when "indirect"?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
> >
> >
> > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> >
> > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
> >
> > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING
> > > >
> > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Forum Moderator
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

...And that's the way that a discussion of history SHOULD be, shouldn't it? It shouldn't be a "take no prisoners" conflict. When I encounter some people's "absolutist" attitude towards the discussion of historical events, I don't blame Henry Ford for having said "History is bunk."

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> as a person with a life long interest in richard and the mystery of the princes in the tower, i have learned a great deal to verify and dispell the errors in the traditional opinion of king richard.
> since 1995, i have been a serious researcher on the story of richard.
> for the most part the accusations regarding richard are easily proven as false.
>  
> richard was not a saint, but he certainly was not the monster protrayed by more, shakespeare and other tudor propagandists. i have received help from several members of the forum to help correct or redirect or even further my research. i've also provided information to others who are seeking answers and verification.
>  
> i've encountered distain and ridicule and sometimes a complete shut down of communciation as well as dogpiling that appeared directed to shut down an avenue of research.
>  
> i've asked questions that opinions and off the cuff answers were given. most recently it was regarding why so many changes in the date of the coronation of e5. while i was given "traditional" reasons, i was not provided with the assorted dates and the number of postponements. there was no serious questioning or dialogue of the reasons why the changes.
>  
> going from memory, i think there was even a proposal of the era, suggesting that e5 be crowned as late as november 1483.
>  
> most of us know that effective june 22/23, 1483 that e5 would never be crowned. until we can verify all the activities of the key players from the death of e4 to r3's acceptance by the councils as the rightful king there will always be questions and doubts.
>  
> and then the events after june 1483, especially during july and august 1483 leave a great many questions unanswered. my goal is and will always be to get as much verification as possible in the months just prior to r3's reign to the end of it, plus the era of lies historians created during the tudor reign and beyond.
>  
> in the meantime, i'm having a grand time learning, sharing and verifying.
>  
> so long answer short, yes i have refined, and redefined my opinion of richard from both a subjective and objective viewpoint. the journey has taken me from e3 through to 1674 and sometimes beyond.
>  
> roslyn
>
> --- On Sun, 7/29/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Excuse me, but....
> To:
> Received: Sunday, July 29, 2012, 8:36 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I believe that it is a legitimate question to ask if peoples' attraction to Richard III is more of a subjective matter than an objective interest in determining what "facts' can be verified about him. I have already posted that I began with a very strongly emotional commitment to Richard, based upon what I now know to have been a very "partisan" historical treatment. Later study helped to "refine" my subjective position. Have others had a similar experience?
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is that we do not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there but we still don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago during a meeting of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of Birmingham asked people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the Princes, no one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the Princes, same response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so therefore we couldn't say one way or the other.
> >
> > Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the issues because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she can for evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short reign. Annette also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into account R.E COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's excellent "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The Deceivers" also should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort was up to something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
> >
> > I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and continue to research for any evidence that we can of what happened during Richard's reign. We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell, was he Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's illegimate children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles murder Edward IV as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony Woodville was certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville take the treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a tradition in the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her two sons by permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control over his wife after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard give them a prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be answered before anyone can say Richard did
> or did not murder the Princes.
> >
> > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
> > >
> > >
> > > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> > >
> > > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
> > >
> > > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Moderator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > WARNING
> > > > >
> > > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Forum Moderator
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

many thank you's. i now have a jstor account. :-), although it does look like i will have to pay for the articles i'd like read.
 
roslyn

--- On Mon, 7/30/12, Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:


From: Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...>
Subject: Re: JSTOR
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 12:58 PM



 




I have recently signed up for my own, free JSTOR account. The starting
page is at:

https://www.jstor.org/action/showLogin?redirectUri=%2F

I can't find anything starting 'Medieval', which probably just means
that I don't know my way around yet...

On 30/07/2012 13:45, fayre rose wrote:
>
> i have asked several times if anyone has access to pearl kibre's writing about dr. lewis caerleon. the result is dead silence and white space.
>
> the article is available via jstor (my library does not have a subscription) or the full book, Studies in Medieval Science: Alchemy, Astrology, Mathematics and Medicine, of which i need access to ch.15.
>
>

--
Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

I try so hard to resist articles. They cost the same as books, but some are
just too good to pass up. Fortunately, I can claim some of the cost back on
tax. I put my history interests to one side when I worked in a university,
focussed on getting work related texts. All those lovely articles I could
have got for free!

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: JSTOR






many thank you's. i now have a jstor account. :-), although it does look
like i will have to pay for the articles i'd like read.

roslyn

--- On Mon, 7/30/12, Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...
<mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk> > wrote:

From: Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...
<mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk> >
Subject: Re: JSTOR
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 12:58 PM



I have recently signed up for my own, free JSTOR account. The starting
page is at:

https://www.jstor.org/action/showLogin?redirectUri=%2F

I can't find anything starting 'Medieval', which probably just means
that I don't know my way around yet...

On 30/07/2012 13:45, fayre rose wrote:
>
> i have asked several times if anyone has access to pearl kibre's writing about
dr. lewis caerleon. the result is dead silence and white space.
>
> the article is available via jstor (my library does not have a subscription)
or the full book, Studies in Medieval Science: Alchemy, Astrology, Mathematics
and Medicine, of which i need access to ch.15.
>
>

--
Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

The RIII Society's American Branch librarian, Susan Higginbotham, has written a good article about the claim that the Woodvilles stole the royal treasure. You can read it at:

http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/royaltreasurywood.html

This article cites two sources that are worth following up: both by Rosemary Horrox. "Financial Memoranda of the Reign of Edward V," and "Richard III: A Study in Service."

Charles Ross' "Edward IV" also discusses the state of royal finances at the end of Edward IV's reign. "Edward IV" gives its readers a lot
to think about, and it's fair to Richard, IMO.

There is a Yahoo discussion group called "E4Arsenic: Death by Arsenic?" that will give readers a lot to think about. This group didn't reach agreement on the cause of Edward IV's death, but members contributed a lot of good ideas, and it's well worth reading.

Hope this helps,

Marion



--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Well said Neil. Unfortunately the problem with Richard's story is that we do not know all the facts. There is quite a bit of evidence out there but we still don't know exactly what happened in 1483 - 1485. Some years ago during a meeting of the Worcestershire Branch, Kevin Down of the University of Birmingham asked people to put up their hands if they thought Richard had killed the Princes, no one did. Then he asked if people thought Richard did not kill the Princes, same response. The conclusion being that we didn't know definitely so therefore we couldn't say one way or the other.
>
> Annette's book "The Maligned King" goes along way to address the issues because she is doing the right thing by researching as much as she can for evidence as to what Richard did and didn't do during his short reign. Annette also does not dismiss other people's research. She takes into account R.E COLLINS book on the Death of Edward IV and John Ashdown Hill's excellent "Eleanor, the Secret Queen". Geoffrey Richardson's book " The Deceivers" also should be taken in to consideration because Lady Margaret Beaufort was up to something but as yet we do not have any evidence as to exactly what.
>
> I think that all we can do is post our opinions on this forum and continue to research for any evidence that we can of what happened during Richard's reign. We need to ask lots of questions like who was Richard of Eastwell, was he Richard Duke of York or was he another of Richard's or even Edward's illegimate children? Why did Richard execute Hastings? Did the Woodvilles murder Edward IV as R E Collins sugeests they could have done? Again Anthony Woodville was certainly up to something in early 1483. Why did Edward Woodville take the treasure belonging to his nephew and leave the country? Was there a tradition in the Tyrrell family that Elizabeth Woodville was at Gypping wih her two sons by permission of the Uncle? Why did Richard give Lord Stanley control over his wife after his supposed part in the plot on 13 July and why did Richard give them a prominent part in his Coronation? Lots of questions still to be answered before anyone can say Richard did or did not murder the Princes.
>
> --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.
> >
> >
> > With regards to the forum I would like to say this:
> >
> > Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.
> >
> > If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
> > >
> > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING
> > > >
> > > > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Forum Moderator
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thank for the heads-up on JSTOR. I wanted to use it for years, but wasn't close to a participating institution.



________________________________
From: Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:58:11 PM
Subject: Re: JSTOR


 

I have recently signed up for my own, free JSTOR account. The starting
page is at:

https://www.jstor.org/action/showLogin?redirectUri=%2F

I can't find anything starting 'Medieval', which probably just means
that I don't know my way around yet...

On 30/07/2012 13:45, fayre rose wrote:
>
> i have asked several times if anyone has access to pearl kibre's writing about dr. lewis caerleon. the result is dead silence and white space.
>
> the article is available via jstor (my library does not have a subscription) or the full book, Studies in Medieval Science: Alchemy, Astrology, Mathematics and Medicine, of which i need access to ch.15.
>
>

--
Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

yes, i have few thousand dollars worth of books about r3 and his era. i'm debating about investing $15.00 for one article, or $175 (or up to more than $1000 for a collector's edition) for the whole book that includes the article.
 
with the whole book i might get a better sense of the entire era and the philosophy regarding astrology, alchemy and mathmatics. dr. lewis was better known for his astrological calculations than for his medicinal writings. perhaps i might even glean a bit more info on nandyke the necromancer who also played a role during r3's reign.
 
roslyn
 


--- On Mon, 7/30/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: JSTOR
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 1:52 PM



 



I try so hard to resist articles. They cost the same as books, but some are
just too good to pass up. Fortunately, I can claim some of the cost back on
tax. I put my history interests to one side when I worked in a university,
focussed on getting work related texts. All those lovely articles I could
have got for free!

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: JSTOR

many thank you's. i now have a jstor account. :-), although it does look
like i will have to pay for the articles i'd like read.

roslyn

--- On Mon, 7/30/12, Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...
<mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk> > wrote:

From: Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...
<mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk> >
Subject: Re: JSTOR
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 12:58 PM

I have recently signed up for my own, free JSTOR account. The starting
page is at:

https://www.jstor.org/action/showLogin?redirectUri=%2F

I can't find anything starting 'Medieval', which probably just means
that I don't know my way around yet...

On 30/07/2012 13:45, fayre rose wrote:
>
> i have asked several times if anyone has access to pearl kibre's writing about
dr. lewis caerleon. the result is dead silence and white space.
>
> the article is available via jstor (my library does not have a subscription)
or the full book, Studies in Medieval Science: Alchemy, Astrology, Mathematics
and Medicine, of which i need access to ch.15.
>
>

--
Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

Thank you Neil for your sensible comments.  I did respond and I wish I had not.  After all what's the point? :)
Vickie

From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Excuse me, but....


 

I could see that there was the potential for people to end up having on-line personal 'spats' which is not accepted or tolerated by me. We are all 'grown ups' and should behave as such.

With regards to the forum I would like to say this:

Ideally as historians we should be as objective as possible. However if people are going to be subjective, they should accept it when others do the same. Please take into account also that being subjective will spark debate, which is good and I am for, but please don't be subjective and feel that others must agree, because they probably won't.

If people are going to have a debate it is wise to be prepared with facts if possible and any information at hand to back up their argument, especially when dealing with such an emotive issue where so much evidence is missing or can be interpreted in different ways. This will lend weight to the argument and avoid any unnecessary spats. However, I know that most of you do not need to be reminded of this.

Regards,

Moderator

On 29 Jul 2012, at 07:53, "warrenmalach" <mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Forum Moderator: I don't mind being criticized, but I don't think that it's asking too much to expect the person making the criticism to have the integrity to speak it directly to the person whom they are criticizing. If they have a "problem" with me, they are free to take it "out of the forum" so as to not cause problems. My email address is available upon request!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> >
> > WARNING
> >
> > If threads start to get out of hand I will respond accordingly.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Forum Moderator
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2012, at 06:30, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Why don't you have the integrity to criticize people directly?
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Foop. If the shoe fits, wear it, Otherwise, ignore my comment.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you able to directly address the person whom you mean to criticize?Are you accusing them of trying to Use Other People's Research for their own purposes, or of not showing sufficient respect for their answers by refraining from asking further questions? Is this a "personality" issue? Thank you for clarifying your statements!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When a new person comes into a group with questions, naturally people respond to answer them. But when that person goes on and on with a contentious take on quite a few points, and demands more and more "proof" in the answers, I begin to suspect a case of Using Other People's Research. Stir up knowledgeable people, and they will supply chapter and verse to support their views, and the questioner goes away with a year's worth of research, often into sources off the beaten track, with very little effort.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just saying....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>