Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-12 > 1039428315

From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial of Permission to print.
Date: 9 Dec 2002 02:05:15 -0800
References: <00d601c29efb$10b87860$>

Dear Newsgroup ~

While I enjoyed reading Ms. Bevan's original post on the Montgomery
family, I see no purpose in this latest post of her's below. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with medieval history. This is basically a
private matter between herself and Mr. Finton. Moreover, the tone of
this post lacks the collegiality that is necessary for the newsgroup
to function on an even keel. We need a new mantra for the newsgroup
in 2003: Keep it friendly, keep it on topic. Ms. Bevan's post fails
on both accounts.

As for Ms. Bevan's allegation of Mr. Finton's "private commercial
gain," this is surely a figment of Ms. Bevan's wild imagination.
Truth is very few people get wealthy working in genealogy. For all
purposes, it remains a glorified hobby. In contrast, I know many
wealthy people in insurance, banking, medicine, real estate, and law.
As for Mr. Finton's endeavors, I appreciate the fact that the
newsgroup has a related journal which publishes significant newsgroup
posts in digest format. This is a great service, not a hindrance to
the newsgroup. As for Mr. Finton's editorial skills, I've been
writing all my adult life. I find Mr. Finton's journal is
informative, well presented, and free of typos.

My impression is that Ms. Bevan has an ax to grind with Mr. Finton
that has nothing to do with his journal. If so, I encourage the two
of them to work things out privately with each other. Good luck to
both of them. Now let's return to medieval genealogy.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


("Rosie Bevan") wrote in message news:<00d601c29efb$10b87860$>...
> Ken Finton has requested permission to publish my recently posted
> Montgomery research in The Plantagenet Connection. His request was couched
> in the phrase, " Do you gave [sic] objection to a reprint?"
> Mr Finton has already flouted my request not to print a post of mine once
> already,
> so for the record I would like it publicly known that I deny him permission
> to reprint the research.
> The reasons for this are
> 1. I object to Mr Finton's practice of taking material from SGM to publish
> for his private commercial gain, without asking permission from the poster.
> Despite
> his protestations he continues to take material posted to the newsgroup,
> either without asking permission of the author, or ignoring the wishes of
> those who deny him permission.
> 2. I do not feel he has the editorial skills nor ethical practice I would
> expect from an editor of such a journal.
> 3. I am intending to publish the research elsewhere with a reputable body.
> Rosie Bevan

This thread: