GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-10 > 1002917088


From: "Paul C. Reed" <>
Subject: Re: New evidence for parentage of Edward de Warenne, ancestor of Warrens
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:04:48 -0600
References: <5cf47a19.0110110935.224a7062@posting.google.com>, <20011012004751.02708.00005760@mb-fc.aol.com>, <5cf47a19.0110120634.68d7ba5e@posting.google.com>


Douglas Richardson wrote:

> Dear Mr. Reed,
>

[snip]

>
> Given this confused state of affairs, you are much misinformed to say
> that the information on Edward de Warenne's parentage is "standard"
> and "readily available." To say that the information I posted this
> week is "readily available" is nothing short of a blatant attempt to
> deceive the newsgroup. The newsgroup can suffer fools, Mr. Reed, but
> not liars.
>
> Best always,

"Best always"? At the same time you accuse me of making a "blatant attempt to deceive the newsgroup"?
: )

If you are going into original research, checking Patent Rolls, Papal Petitions, etc., that is one
thing. In my personal opinion, if you are checking secondary sources such as Blomefield's Norfolk,
Norfolk Archaeology, etc., sources which others I know have checked years ago (in searching out the
ancestry of Humphrey Warren), then the only thing new about the material is that it is new to you. If
sources are cited in Marshall and Whitmore's guides, they should be something any intelligent person
checks, and should be expected to check.

I cannot tell if you called me a fool, but I expect from the above you called me a liar, but as you've
called me worse behind my back, I really don't care.

Best always!

Paul


This thread: