now for that other little matter...
now for that other little matter...
2013-02-06 14:08:29
Here's a 16th century version of events...
"of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion / however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton begged his bred from dore to dore."
"of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion / however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton begged his bred from dore to dore."
Re: now for that other little matter...
2013-02-06 15:49:55
Except Tyrrell had already been knighted years earlier hadn't he?
what a load of rubbish. As if Forrest and Dighton would have been allowed to live if everyone "knew" they had killed the princes.
From: research_team <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 14:08
Subject: now for that other little matter...
Here's a 16th century version of events...
"of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion / however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton begged his bred from dore to dore."
what a load of rubbish. As if Forrest and Dighton would have been allowed to live if everyone "knew" they had killed the princes.
From: research_team <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 14:08
Subject: now for that other little matter...
Here's a 16th century version of events...
"of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion / however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton begged his bred from dore to dore."
Re: now for that other little matter...
2013-02-06 18:17:37
--- In , research_team wrote:
>
> Here's a 16th century version of events...
>
>
> "of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion / however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton begged his bred from dore to dore."
>
Carol responds:
This paragraph is simply a condensation of Sir Thomas More's version of events. He admits himself to having heard other versions of the story, including that both boys escaped. As for Sir James Tyrell (not Tirwell), Edward IV knighted him in 1471 after the battle of Tewkesbury and Richard made him a knight banneret in 1482 while Richard was still duke of Gloucester. He was Richard's master of the horse while Richard was king, hardly an unknown man waiting at Richard's door hoping for employment as More's story has it. There is no record of his having confessed to the murders of the "princes." The "confession" was invented by Henry VII after Tyrell was executed for aiding another of Richard's nephews. I suspect that More, not Henry, invented the details of this story, especially since More claims that it's only one of many stories that he had heard. Had it been Henry's official version of events, More would have said so.
By the way, I'm curious as to why you posted this passage and what sort of reaction you were expecting.
Carol
>
> Here's a 16th century version of events...
>
>
> "of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion / however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton begged his bred from dore to dore."
>
Carol responds:
This paragraph is simply a condensation of Sir Thomas More's version of events. He admits himself to having heard other versions of the story, including that both boys escaped. As for Sir James Tyrell (not Tirwell), Edward IV knighted him in 1471 after the battle of Tewkesbury and Richard made him a knight banneret in 1482 while Richard was still duke of Gloucester. He was Richard's master of the horse while Richard was king, hardly an unknown man waiting at Richard's door hoping for employment as More's story has it. There is no record of his having confessed to the murders of the "princes." The "confession" was invented by Henry VII after Tyrell was executed for aiding another of Richard's nephews. I suspect that More, not Henry, invented the details of this story, especially since More claims that it's only one of many stories that he had heard. Had it been Henry's official version of events, More would have said so.
By the way, I'm curious as to why you posted this passage and what sort of reaction you were expecting.
Carol
Re: now for that other little matter...
2013-02-06 19:54:10
Hi, Carol -
Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with some
interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or post a
follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie" to
quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:18 PM
To:
Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , research_team wrote:
>
> Here's a 16th century version of events...
>
>
> "of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse
speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion /
however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of
their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used
also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said
James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the
kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed
upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held
it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as
by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see
the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was
afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton
begged his bred from dore to dore."
>
Carol responds:
This paragraph is simply a condensation of Sir Thomas More's version of
events. He admits himself to having heard other versions of the story,
including that both boys escaped. As for Sir James Tyrell (not Tirwell),
Edward IV knighted him in 1471 after the battle of Tewkesbury and Richard
made him a knight banneret in 1482 while Richard was still duke of
Gloucester. He was Richard's master of the horse while Richard was king,
hardly an unknown man waiting at Richard's door hoping for employment as
More's story has it. There is no record of his having confessed to the
murders of the "princes." The "confession" was invented by Henry VII after
Tyrell was executed for aiding another of Richard's nephews. I suspect that
More, not Henry, invented the details of this story, especially since More
claims that it's only one of many stories that he had heard. Had it been
Henry's official version of events, More would have said so.
By the way, I'm curious as to why you posted this passage and what sort of
reaction you were expecting.
Carol
Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with some
interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or post a
follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie" to
quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:18 PM
To:
Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , research_team wrote:
>
> Here's a 16th century version of events...
>
>
> "of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse
speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion /
however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of
their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used
also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said
James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the
kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed
upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held
it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as
by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see
the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was
afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton
begged his bred from dore to dore."
>
Carol responds:
This paragraph is simply a condensation of Sir Thomas More's version of
events. He admits himself to having heard other versions of the story,
including that both boys escaped. As for Sir James Tyrell (not Tirwell),
Edward IV knighted him in 1471 after the battle of Tewkesbury and Richard
made him a knight banneret in 1482 while Richard was still duke of
Gloucester. He was Richard's master of the horse while Richard was king,
hardly an unknown man waiting at Richard's door hoping for employment as
More's story has it. There is no record of his having confessed to the
murders of the "princes." The "confession" was invented by Henry VII after
Tyrell was executed for aiding another of Richard's nephews. I suspect that
More, not Henry, invented the details of this story, especially since More
claims that it's only one of many stories that he had heard. Had it been
Henry's official version of events, More would have said so.
By the way, I'm curious as to why you posted this passage and what sort of
reaction you were expecting.
Carol
Re: now for that other little matter...
2013-02-06 20:21:31
Am I being identified as the contributor of the excerpt from More sent from "Research_tesm"? It wasn't me and that is not my email address, honestly.
Maie
--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
>
>
> Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
>
>
>
> Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with some
> interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or post a
> follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie" to
> quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> , research_team wrote:
> >
> > Here's a 16th century version of events...
> >
> >
> > "of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse
> speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion /
> however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of
> their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used
> also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said
> James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the
> kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed
> upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held
> it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as
> by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see
> the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was
> afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton
> begged his bred from dore to dore."
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> This paragraph is simply a condensation of Sir Thomas More's version of
> events. He admits himself to having heard other versions of the story,
> including that both boys escaped. As for Sir James Tyrell (not Tirwell),
> Edward IV knighted him in 1471 after the battle of Tewkesbury and Richard
> made him a knight banneret in 1482 while Richard was still duke of
> Gloucester. He was Richard's master of the horse while Richard was king,
> hardly an unknown man waiting at Richard's door hoping for employment as
> More's story has it. There is no record of his having confessed to the
> murders of the "princes." The "confession" was invented by Henry VII after
> Tyrell was executed for aiding another of Richard's nephews. I suspect that
> More, not Henry, invented the details of this story, especially since More
> claims that it's only one of many stories that he had heard. Had it been
> Henry's official version of events, More would have said so.
>
> By the way, I'm curious as to why you posted this passage and what sort of
> reaction you were expecting.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Maie
--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
>
>
> Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
>
>
>
> Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with some
> interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or post a
> follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie" to
> quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> , research_team wrote:
> >
> > Here's a 16th century version of events...
> >
> >
> > "of the maner of the murder of these two princes there have bene diverse
> speches & every man almost yt hath dealt wtall hath had his owne opinion /
> however the truthe therof is yt James Tirwell was the cheef instrument of
> their slaughter / & in respect therof was afterward made knighte / he used
> also the aid herein of one Miles Forrest & James Dighton / and the said
> James having the kaies of the Tower delivered him for one night of the
> kinges especiall comaundement thei entred the chamber & threw a fether bed
> upon the two gentlemens faces as they laie sleping in their beddes & so held
> it downe by force upon them yt thei smothered them wt the heate therof / as
> by thexamination of the saide Tirrell & Dighton afterward appeared / but see
> the iustice of God showed herein upon them for Sir James Tyrrell was
> afterward behedded for treason / Forrest died of a Gangrene / & Dighton
> begged his bred from dore to dore."
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> This paragraph is simply a condensation of Sir Thomas More's version of
> events. He admits himself to having heard other versions of the story,
> including that both boys escaped. As for Sir James Tyrell (not Tirwell),
> Edward IV knighted him in 1471 after the battle of Tewkesbury and Richard
> made him a knight banneret in 1482 while Richard was still duke of
> Gloucester. He was Richard's master of the horse while Richard was king,
> hardly an unknown man waiting at Richard's door hoping for employment as
> More's story has it. There is no record of his having confessed to the
> murders of the "princes." The "confession" was invented by Henry VII after
> Tyrell was executed for aiding another of Richard's nephews. I suspect that
> More, not Henry, invented the details of this story, especially since More
> claims that it's only one of many stories that he had heard. Had it been
> Henry's official version of events, More would have said so.
>
> By the way, I'm curious as to why you posted this passage and what sort of
> reaction you were expecting.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: now for that other little matter...
2013-02-06 21:56:27
Hi, Marie -
Apologies - I thought it was you and that you had a reason for sending the
message anonymously (pulling our legs or something). I thought I had seen
the [email protected] address before, so I searched my inbox for my
most recent "RIIIsocietyforum" messages, and all the ones with that return
address were from you. I don't exactly understand - maybe you can explain
from your end, if that's not really your email address. I don't doubt you a
bit, mind you, but I'm perplexed.
Sorry for any inconvenience or misunderstanding.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Johanne Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
Am I being identified as the contributor of the excerpt from More sent from
"Research_tesm"? It wasn't me and that is not my email address, honestly.
Maie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
>
>
> Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
>
>
>
> Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with
some
> interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or post
a
> follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie" to
> quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
Apologies - I thought it was you and that you had a reason for sending the
message anonymously (pulling our legs or something). I thought I had seen
the [email protected] address before, so I searched my inbox for my
most recent "RIIIsocietyforum" messages, and all the ones with that return
address were from you. I don't exactly understand - maybe you can explain
from your end, if that's not really your email address. I don't doubt you a
bit, mind you, but I'm perplexed.
Sorry for any inconvenience or misunderstanding.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Johanne Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
Am I being identified as the contributor of the excerpt from More sent from
"Research_tesm"? It wasn't me and that is not my email address, honestly.
Maie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
>
>
> Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
>
>
>
> Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with
some
> interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or post
a
> follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie" to
> quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
Re: now for that other little matter...
2013-02-06 22:24:09
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest. [snip]
Carol responds:
You've probably read her response by now indicating that it wasn't her. As you said in the part I snipped, she would have included some sort of comment with the quote. I checked the members list. "Research Team," whoever he is, is male.
Carol
> Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest. [snip]
Carol responds:
You've probably read her response by now indicating that it wasn't her. As you said in the part I snipped, she would have included some sort of comment with the quote. I checked the members list. "Research Team," whoever he is, is male.
Carol
Re: now for that other little matter...
2013-02-06 22:25:59
I think it's a setting rather than an email address. I had some unpleasant personal emails at one stage so blocked my email address on the forum.
Marie
--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie -
>
> Apologies - I thought it was you and that you had a reason for sending the
> message anonymously (pulling our legs or something). I thought I had seen
> the [email protected] address before, so I searched my inbox for my
> most recent "RIIIsocietyforum" messages, and all the ones with that return
> address were from you. I don't exactly understand - maybe you can explain
> from your end, if that's not really your email address. I don't doubt you a
> bit, mind you, but I'm perplexed.
>
>
>
> Sorry for any inconvenience or misunderstanding.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> Johanne Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
>
>
>
>
>
> Am I being identified as the contributor of the excerpt from More sent from
> "Research_tesm"? It wasn't me and that is not my email address, honestly.
> Maie
>
> --- In
> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Carol -
> >
> >
> >
> > Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> > address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with
> some
> > interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or post
> a
> > follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie" to
> > quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie -
>
> Apologies - I thought it was you and that you had a reason for sending the
> message anonymously (pulling our legs or something). I thought I had seen
> the [email protected] address before, so I searched my inbox for my
> most recent "RIIIsocietyforum" messages, and all the ones with that return
> address were from you. I don't exactly understand - maybe you can explain
> from your end, if that's not really your email address. I don't doubt you a
> bit, mind you, but I'm perplexed.
>
>
>
> Sorry for any inconvenience or misunderstanding.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> Johanne Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
>
>
>
>
>
> Am I being identified as the contributor of the excerpt from More sent from
> "Research_tesm"? It wasn't me and that is not my email address, honestly.
> Maie
>
> --- In
> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Carol -
> >
> >
> >
> > Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> > address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with
> some
> > interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or post
> a
> > follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie" to
> > quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: now for that other little matter...
2013-02-06 23:46:53
OK, that explains that then. Anyone who blocks their address will show up as
[email protected]. I actually thought that was your email address!
Sorry for the confusion!
I guess there are legitimate reasons to do something like that, but
everyone's messages should be signed, especially when the guy is using some
handle like "research team."
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 6:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
I think it's a setting rather than an email address. I had some unpleasant
personal emails at one stage so blocked my email address on the forum.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie -
>
> Apologies - I thought it was you and that you had a reason for sending the
> message anonymously (pulling our legs or something). I thought I had seen
> the [email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> address
before, so I searched my inbox for my
> most recent "RIIIsocietyforum" messages, and all the ones with that return
> address were from you. I don't exactly understand - maybe you can explain
> from your end, if that's not really your email address. I don't doubt you
a
> bit, mind you, but I'm perplexed.
>
>
>
> Sorry for any inconvenience or misunderstanding.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> Johanne Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:21 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: now for that other little
matter...
>
>
>
>
>
> Am I being identified as the contributor of the excerpt from More sent
from
> "Research_tesm"? It wasn't me and that is not my email address, honestly.
> Maie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Carol -
> >
> >
> >
> > Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> > address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with
> some
> > interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or
post
> a
> > follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie"
to
> > quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected]. I actually thought that was your email address!
Sorry for the confusion!
I guess there are legitimate reasons to do something like that, but
everyone's messages should be signed, especially when the guy is using some
handle like "research team."
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 6:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: now for that other little matter...
I think it's a setting rather than an email address. I had some unpleasant
personal emails at one stage so blocked my email address on the forum.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie -
>
> Apologies - I thought it was you and that you had a reason for sending the
> message anonymously (pulling our legs or something). I thought I had seen
> the [email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> address
before, so I searched my inbox for my
> most recent "RIIIsocietyforum" messages, and all the ones with that return
> address were from you. I don't exactly understand - maybe you can explain
> from your end, if that's not really your email address. I don't doubt you
a
> bit, mind you, but I'm perplexed.
>
>
>
> Sorry for any inconvenience or misunderstanding.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> Johanne Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:21 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: now for that other little
matter...
>
>
>
>
>
> Am I being identified as the contributor of the excerpt from More sent
from
> "Research_tesm"? It wasn't me and that is not my email address, honestly.
> Maie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Carol -
> >
> >
> >
> > Just thought it might be worth mentioning that that is Marie's email
> > address, though where "research team" came from I haven't the foggiest.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since it would seem to be Marie, I thought she might follow it up with
> some
> > interesting insights based on her own research into the question, or
post
> a
> > follow-up on the idea that the bones in the urn (aka "Eric" and "Urnie"
to
> > quote David, I think it was) should be DNA tested.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.