GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-03 > 0922582442


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Judith of Lens
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:54:02 -1000


Vide infra.

You appear to be having some severe difficulties in reading and
understanding what I've written to you. Here it is again, in very
simple language.

You say to us:

> That Col. Charles Hansen unwisely relied on an [sic] secondary
> source to form a conclusion on a medieval genealogical problem.
3/26/99

[N.B. This is verbatim, both above and below.]

Previously, after having been directly challenged by Paul Reed, you
admitted:

>So, Paul, you are correct Col. Hansen never printed that Count
>Lambert was ficticious. [sic]
3/25/99

But, you still have made a slur on Colonel Charles Hansen by saying
he, "unwisely relied on an [sic] secondary source to form a
conclusion." You have refused to withdraw that slur and recant.

Now, you recently came here and made noises about being a professional
genealogist and you touted your book. There is nothing wrong with
that. We all look forward to "Magna Carta Ancestors" by David Faris
and you. Many here will be buying it, including me.

However, there are certain responsibilities that operate in concert
with stature as a professional genealogist. One of those
responsibilities is that when you make a criticism of someone else you
have the evidence in hand to back up your statement, or you humbly
recant.

That keeps people honest. Now if you have hard evidence that Colonel
Charles Hansen, "unwisely relied on a secondary source to form a
conclusion" --- bring it forward.

Remember, that you said "to form a conclusion" and Hansen, by your own
admission, did not include this allegedly false "conclusion" in his
article.

In your own words:

>In due time, Col. Hansen published his opinion on this subject in The
>Genealogist, which piece fortunately did not include his earlier
>position that Count Lambert of Lens was a ficticious [sic] person.
3/25/99

Now, if you have a shred of integrity as a man and as a professional
genealogist, you will either present us with the evidence for that
charge of bad judgment *de minimis* and perhaps malfeasance --- or
recant and withdraw your charge, coupled with a full apology to
Colonel Hansen.

D. Spencer Hines

Fortem Posce Animum
--

D. Spencer Hines --- Sir Robert De Lesseps: "She is a beauty, my lord,
as would take a king to church for a dowry of a nutmeg."; Lord Wessex:
"My plantations in Virginia are not mortgaged for a nutmeg. I have an
ancient name that will bring you preferment when your grandson is a
Wessex. Is she fertile?; Sir Robert: "She will breed. If she do not,
send her back."; Lord Wessex: "Is she obedient?; Sir Robert: "As any
mule in Christendom. But if you are the man to ride her, there are
rubies in the saddlebag."; Lord Wessex: "I like her" --- "Shakespeare
In Love" [1998]; Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard; p. 42.

Dcrdcr4 <> wrote in message
news:...

> The important thing is what I posted originally. That Col. Charles
Hansen
> unwisely relied on an secondary source to form a conclusion on a
medieval
> genealogical problem. That was the issue then. That is the issue
now. Not
> what who said to whom. There's a lesson in there for all of us,
including me.
> Best always, Douglas Richardson
>

This thread: