GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-05 > 1020275149


From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: Off-Topic Reply to RE: On Douglas Richardson's new books
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 10:50:06 -0700
References: <a9b2ce02.0204270406.61bbde72@posting.google.com><004d01c1ee54$04040380$6156b241@D9080911><a9b2ce02.0204280744.552c8024@posting.google.com>


Bryant Smith wrote:

> Dear Henry (if I may be so bold):
>
> (Sutliff) wrote in message news:<004d01c1ee54$04040380$>...
> > If one it tired of off-topic posts or discussion, please hit the delete
> > button or read no further.
>
> AMEN.
>
> I did not mean, nor do I believe what I wrote
> fairly bears the construction, that I have any
> less respect for you or for your scholarship,
> than previously, because of that outburst of
> yours for which I chided you.

>
> Snipped

>
> I take it as a given that Richardson and Fenton
> are perceived by some of the best (and one of the
> worst)scholars in the group as abusing their
> contributions by appropriating them without due
> deference to principles of copyright, ethics and
> scholarship; and with some marginal reservations
> concerning occasional implcations of "ownership" of
> ideas I pretty much agree that the abuses have
> occurred and are likely to continue.

KHF does attribute authorship, what he does not do is ask permission
first. I have given him
permission for one piece, but I have issues in which I appear quite
prominently and substantially
fo which permission was never asked and was not granted.

He also leaves off my AG by which I am entitled to be referred. I also
do no like being called MS I
am a Mrs.

He also doesn't even give complimentary copies to his "authors". I
should probably have a
complimentary subscription for several years coming by now :-)

Nit pick :-)

>
> What I find regrettable is the reaction of some of
> those scholars whose interests have been invaded.
> I assume it is true that the "underground network"
> you describe has come into existence as part of
> that reaction, and we now have a situation in which
> those scholars are using the list/newsgroup to vent
> their wrath while continuing their valuable work
> outside the reach of the vast majority of "enthusiastic
> amateurs" who could benefit from it without abusing
> it.
> This remedy is what I call "Herodian:" It strikes
> at a whole population in order to forestall one
> perceived threat. And like Herod's fear, I think
> the perceptions of the scholars here are exaggerated.

By calling an effort to share material without subjecting it to data
mining, theft, palagiarism,
whatever, without posting it to the group Herodian, you are implying you
have a right to see it. I
am not aware of any Constitutional, God-given, or any other right you
have to our material, except
that which we give you by posting. We are not under any obligation to
share anything with you. We
do so voluntarily.

>
> That is why I offered the metaphor of the garage
> mechanic. What real, objective harm is done to
> (for example) Stewart Baldwin if Fenton includes
> without proper attribution Baldwin's share in a
> thread, in one of his (Fenton's) "round-table
> discussions?" Sure, his legal rights may have been
> violated; certainly the publication of the round-table
> violated accepted principles of ethics and of sound
> scholarship; but laying aside the provision of
> statutory damages for copyright violation, how much
> actual damage was done to Baldwin? I suggest that
> the main element of damage was "emotional distress,"
> and, although that has become a popular subsidiary
> claim in part of the legal profession -- because
> it gives juries virtual _carte blanche_ in their
> verdicts -- it is one I feel is, like beauty, in
> the mind of the beholder and not to be taken
> seriously out of court. I'm sure we all experience
> more or less frequently invasions of our legal rights
> -- dangerous lane-changes in front of our fast-moving
> cars for example -- but how many of us are reduced
> to road rage?

You are sadly mistaken in this statement. Prof. Baldwin can also get
punitive damages and these can
be extremely heavy.

Also to maintain or attempt to maintain civilization, we have agreed to
abide by certain laws.
By violating these laws, because they are considered trivial, a small
rent is made in social
fabric. If jury verdicts aren't to be taken seriously, why do it? That
is a really foolish thing to
say.

There is emotiona distress and the damage to reputation by being
published in a periodical which
might not have a stellar reputation. Also if material is published in
such a journal, even if it
is substantially expanded, another reputable journal might not touch it
with a 1500'
pole, thus damaging the author.

>
> In short, I feel the fault for the decline of the
> list lies as much in the unreasonable reactions of
> scholars as in the petty thefts, if you will, of
> commercially-motivated data miners.

Definitely fallacious reasoning and bovine excrement.

>
> I want to leave your message whole and unaltered,
> so I shall copy-and-paste here one part of it for
> special reply:
> > Last week you posted something which (by my interpretation) suggested
> > that you would buy Richardson's book regardless of whether it contained
> > proper attribution or documentation (please correct me if I have
> > misinterpreted you.).
> You did misinterpret me; rather, you overlooked
> a vital part of what I wrote. What I wrote on April
> 25 was:
> "Hopefully it will include a lot of his debatable
> conclusions -- and I don't give a damn whether they are
> presented as gospel in the main part or relegated to a freak
> show in an appendix -- nor do I give much of a damn whether he
> gives adequate recognition to his **contemporary** sources,
> provided he does a thorough job of citing the **original
> documentary** sources." [**...** -- emphasis added]

If Mr. Richardson cites material which has been provided him by others,
he should cite the original
source and that it was provided by so-and-so. He was provided this
courtesy by the late Walter Lee
Sheppard FASG, his predecessor, after Weis, in creating these anthologies.

But then you have not shown any great respect for the common courtesies
in the world of
genealogical scholarship. And to say you don't care how you get the
information, as long as you get
it, makes you a little more than a parasite, and not even a grateful one :-)

Nobody ever accused me of being tactful :-) Lest the membership arise
en masse because I have
implicitely called them parasites, I would say, " Get over it". Even if
you are parasites,
by definition,you are feeding off the knowledge of others, I don't think
of you that way, so please
don't take umbrage. In any case, symbiosis frequently happens :-)

Snipped.

Kay Allen AG

>
>
>
> Saludos with olive branch
> Bryant Smith
> Playa Palo Seco
> Costa Rica
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I am very sorry to see a contiubutor of such stature, whose
> > posts I have admired and unabashedly mined, join, as far as
> > I recall for the first time, the cadre of petulant flamers
> > who waste so much of their considerable talent on personal
> > vendettas.
> > Whenever I am surprised at the size of my garage bill, I
> > ask myself, "How many rich auto mechanics do I know?" So
> > now I ask, what do the activities of Douglas Richardson and
> > Kenneth Fenton really cost the most sophisticated contributors
> > here, other than perhaps high blood pressure resulting from
> > frustration and pique?
> > Saludos
> > Bryant Smith
> > Playa Palo Seco
> > Costa Rica
> >
> >
>
> > Mr. Smith,
> >
> > If my opinion of Messers Finton and Richardson is a qualifier for
> > respect by you and others on this list, then I am sorry that it was
> > misplaced. My phraseology was certainly indelicate but the opinions were
> > genuine. I, and apparently many others judging by public and private
> > messages, have become disillusioned and disgusted with certain behavior
> > here.
> >
> > I have not looked up in the archives to see how long you have been a
> > contributor to this forum (and do not mean to infer that you are new or
> > unknowledgeable), but I do not believe you were here in 1997 when I
> > first came. Finton was already here and Richardson did not come until
> > about a year or so later.
> >
> > For the most part we are anonymous to each other, from many corners of
> > the world, united by a common interest. I only actually know one person,
> > Kay Allen, A. G. (Absolutely Glamorous) and just hope that disrespect
> > for me will not be visited on her.
> >
> > Like most, I came to this forum as an enthusiastic amateur. (I earned my
> > M. Ed. in History when I was 22 years old which I state only for the
> > context of my major). Although other aspects of my professional
> > background are unimportant to this discussion, I believe some are. I
> > have been a reporter, columnist, book editor, newsletter editor,
> > proofreader and later part owner of a newspaper. Except for the latter,
> > all my work was subject to editors and publishers. I believe this gives
> > more insight into what is going on than just a passing fancy or
> > opportunity for idle pontification.
> >
> > The forum viewed today is quite different than it was in those earlier
> > days and a long way from what I believe Don and Todd thought it would
> > and could be. The free exchange of ideas and material was considerably
> > more than it is now. The invariable comment of "let's get back to
> > genealogy" does not have the same significance that it once did. This is
> > the chilling aspect of our present circumstances.
> >
> > To illustrate what I mean, please check the archives for Todd's posts on
> > the Valletort family, Stewart Baldwin's Irish posts or Ronny Bodine's
> > wonderful construction of the Champernoun branches. As stated in another
> > post earlier in the week I greatly admire the helpful work that John
> > Carmi Parsons used to post detailing the minutia of the Household
> > Accounts of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile. I especially would point to
> > the ones on the children of Edward and Eleanor where he completely
> > dismantles (with solid documentation) what is found in Weir, Leese,
> > Strickland, Paget and elsewhere, the dates, names, placement and even
> > sexes of their children.
> >
> > Finton used to publish his journal without using messages from this
> > forum. I would submit that his transition from not using messages here
> > to liberally using them, sometimes editing out of context, using them
> > without permission, etc. was the catalyst that changed this forum
> > forever. I realize some would add the flame wars which would spill over
> > from soc.history.medieval, but as these disappear, they do not affect
> > the flow of information or education.
> >
> > What this has done is to create a virtual underground network of
> > researchers who exchange data much as it used to be done in this forum.
> > List members never see the best work or discussions of families for
> > which there would be considerable interest. Sadly some of those who used
> > to contribute here on a regular basis are now exchanging data off-list
> > rather than on-list. As many of these people use inquisitions, the
> > various rolls, fines, monumental brasses, manorial records, etc., the
> > potential contribution here is unfathomable. The unfortunate part of
> > this is not the loss of data for people to copy, but rather the
> > education one receives on using these various sources and thus becoming
> > more educated in being able to document one's own work from better
> > sources.
> >
> > Richardson was welcomed into this forum. His association with the very
> > much respected Dr. Faris afforded him considerable good will. In the
> > beginning many of us sincerely tried to help him, but unfortunately
> > since he has hit the book selling mode (in defiance of the SGM
> > netiquette and rules), he has been insufferably rude or patronizing,
> > most likely in direct proportion to whether or not one has pre-ordered
> > his book. One's behavior is not relevant to one's scholarship, but this
> > is where I find Richardson most disappointing. He was literally handed
> > the Faris mantle and could have produced a very safe and scholarly work
> > which would have been universally praised as was Faris and would have
> > many more sales. Little of the discord which has taken place here for
> > the last year needed to happen if Richardson had been able to contain
> > his teases, taunts, boasts or questionable discoveries. Just buy his
> > book and you will get the answers. How many times has that been pushed
> > at us?
> >
> > What we have seen is that Dr. Faris' legacy will now contain
> > considerable conjecture (and if the Aston posts are indicative,
> > vendetta). Many of his claimed discoveries have frustrated more
> > qualified and better genealogists for years: Clemence, Ida, Joan,
> > Gwladys, etc. Whether or not these inclusions are vanity or self esteem
> > driven, Richardson seems intent on forcing answers to complicated
> > identities regardless if they are correct. This is not scholarship, it
> > is self promotion and unprofessional. Most unfortunately it is standing
> > on genealogical quicksand.
> >
> > Just yesterday he bragged that among his disproofs was the
> > Camoys-Mortimer connection. That is simply absurd as it was never proved
> > in the first place; not even CP identified Alice Camoys' mother. Last
> > October Richardson announced that Alice Camoys was daughter of Elizabeth
> > Mortimer. When I and others offered evidence which not only disputed
> > this, but pointed to Elizabeth Louches as Alice's mother, he responded
> > not by considering what we offered, but rather by making personal
> > attacks (his definition of collegiality would be most illuminating). I
> > say again, you cannot disprove something which was never proved in the
> > first place.
> >
> > Last week you posted something which (by my interpretation) suggested
> > that you would buy Richardson's book regardless of whether it contained
> > proper attribution or documentation (please correct me if I have
> > misinterpreted you.). For me, genealogy is everything about solid
> > documentation and not about fantasy, legend or the absence of disproof.
> > Based on published works, I could have three descents from Edward III,
> > but they were based on false ancestry and have been suitably amputated.
> > Respectfully, I find no substitute for solid documentation. That I no
> > longer have a descent from Edward III does not bother me slightest as my
> > search is only for the truth. It may be something novel, but I am
> > realistic that there are identifications that will never be known.
> >
> >
> > Whatever the opinion of me and others, the reality is that Finton is
> > here to gather data for his journal and Richardson is here to sell books
> > and have others do his leg work. I would not deny that both have made
> > contributions, but I believe they should be kept in context with the
> > contributions of others like Taylor, Stone, Baldwin, Thompson,
> > Powys-Lybbe, Channing, Greene, Bevan, Farmerie, Allen, van de Pas,
> > Stewart and yes, Reed and many wonderful others. The former have a
> > financial interest. The latter do not.
> >
> > Henry Sutliff

This thread: