GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-11 > 1101686380
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:59:40 -0000
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <41aa704b@news.ColoState.EDU>
Todd Farmerie is fogging the issues here.
Smoke & Mirrors....
As I stated before, his case and that of David Greene are quite
Farmerie was trying to tease and embarrass Richardson -- whilst Greene
clearly had no such motives.
Until we SEE this document that Farmerie SAYS exists and can evaluate
its MERIT for ourselves ---- all bets are off as to what it MEANS.
SO, simply ANNOUNCING that this document EXISTS -- without further
details -- was designed to intimidate Richardson and play "Peek A Boo
Genealogy" ---- "I know something you don't, but I'm not going to tell
you about it."
Puerile Mediocre Academic Gamesmanship.
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote in message
| Bryant Smith wrote:
| > Good question. The same question was raised by Richardson in
| > thread and Farmerie's reply was that since he was not the discoverer
| > of the document it was not for him to identify it.
| Sorry - if you would prefer not to know that the solution does exist
| (without knowing the details), they try to banish it from your mind.
| fact, just tell yourself that I was not being truthful - that no such
| document exists, if it would make you feel better.
| > There are, obviously, first-class and second-class citizens in this
| > newsgroup. Some
| One, in this case, and my knowledge has nothing to do with my
| participation in this newsgroup.
| > are "inside" and privy to Really Super Secrets like
| > the answer to "what document?" while others are not.
| It is a longstanding principle of ethical scholarship that the
| researcher who makes a discovery has the right of disclosure - of
| determining at what time and in what form the discovery is announced -
| all the more so since there are scholars who are not ethical, and are
| likely to claim the discovery as their own. Who cares?, you might
| While it is a hobby for most (such as myself), it is an occupation
| some, and their ability to feed themselves is at stake. They have no
| responsibility toward you, only to their clients and themselves.
| Likewise, there are non-professional forms of recognition that are of
| value (if only psychologically) to the amateur and professional
| researcher alike, and the same ethical considerations apply to both.
| > There, again, the editor of TAG tells us that there will be two
| > reviews of
| > Richardson's book by real "experts," one in his mag and another in
| > another
| > journal, but that the names of these "experts" must be withheld.
| This is common in all publishing. To release the name of a reviewer
| advance would allow pressure to be placed on her or him. Were I to
| who was reviewing a book for TAG, I could try to influence the review
| (or simply harass the reviewer by sending an email virus or
| It is to protect the integrity of the process that the names of
| reviewers are usually withheld until the time of publication.
| Like it or not, as much as you may want to know these things, that's
| way it is.
|Re: Robert Holand was Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant by "D. Spencer Hines" <>|