Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-05 > 1179846134

Subject: Re: Say hello to Larsy Boy
Date: 22 May 2007 08:02:14 -0700
References: <><4QM3i.1747$><><kW34i.2123$><><><><><36p4i.2471$><><>
In-Reply-To: <>

On May 22, 1:50 am, Peter Stewart <> wrote:
> On May 22, 9:14 am, John Brandon <> wrote:
> > > participants cannot know for certain whether anyone, myself included, posts
> > > here under their own name or a pseudonym, and IT DOES NOT MATTER as long as
> > > readers are aware of which posts come from which individual poster, and they
> > > are not misled or otherwise imposed upon by frauds hiding behind various
> > > identifiers.
> > How strange it is to keep hearing undertones of this, despite your
> > superficial statements that you *really* are Peter Stewart.
> I don't see how my point could be any clearer, and there are no
> "undertones" in it. If I am who I say I am, affirming this against
> foolish questioning is hardly a "superficial" statement. Words have
> definite meanings, and your habit of spraying them around in the faint
> hope of hitting a mark is not an efficient means of communication.
> > People with names that match published genealogical authors can be
> > assumed to be identical, I would think. That's where your problem lies,
> > I guess; you haven't published anything in this field, and probably wish
> > people in your true field not to know of this side-line in which you
> > endlessly harrass (for all intensive purposes) those of whom you
> > disapprove.
> I suppose you mean "to all intents and purposes" rather than "for all
> intensive purposes", but the notion that I disapprove of people for
> unwarranted reasons and then set out to harrass them is absurd. The
> reasons for my criticism of posts and posters are always as plain as I
> can make them, and can be debated just as openly if the targets have
> anything to say for themselves. When they don't, like yourself at
> present, this is not disguised by blathering as above.
> Obviously people can use pseudonyms when publishing genealogical
> studies as easily as in any other field. You have published in
> genealogical journals using the name John Brandon, and Lars Friedan
> does not match this or lead to a rational assumption that these are
> two identifiers for the same individual. In other words, you argument
> is rubbish for the case under discussion.
> As for myself, you have been told by at least one person who knows me
> off-list that I am Peter Stewart in my private life and you have been
> shown irrefutable evidence that I publish literary criticism under
> this name - so the obverse of your argument is equally rubbish.
> > > giving the phoney surname Friedan, IN ADDITION to continuing here as John
> > > Brandon is not sufficient to make this peculiar and very juvenile double
> > > identification plain at all times to all readers.
> > If we keep talking about it long enough, that will do the trick I
> > guess.
> No, because this thread will be forgotten completely, including (with
> luck) by me. For the umpteenth time, other people don't CARE about
> John Brandon and his infantile japes enough to remember the latest
> manifestation in detail. And as an insulter you are also entirely
> forgettable - a very anaemic imitator of the wannabe-Dorothy-Parker
> school of instant wisecrack, that as to genuine wit is highly
> overrated by adolescents even when done competently.
> Peter Stewart

One of the few times that I have found myself in agreement with John
Brandon was when on 19 May, speaking of John Brandon, he said "That
particular--added little of value."

This thread: