GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-04 > 1270726967


From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: Needed: primary sources on Agnes Parr (ca. 1443 - ca. 1490)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:50:52 +0300
References: <mailman.410.1270664258.5522.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><hpj151$i6a$1@news.eternal-september.org><43d58bef-dbd6-4d01-9bb0-5194c3879a5c@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com><hpj4uq$gs7$1@news.eternal-september.org><4ea610ad-e505-45a1-a5ff-5a46741ce3c3@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com><mailman.414.1270692071.5522.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><7cba9fda-5970-4c9f-903a-3e7241e1315b@w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com><0b2b0f7e-9cdf-4461-9784-d4c9becaff09@i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com><hpk6t4$p9h$1@news.eternal-september.org><b4bd936c-8460-45f9-a733-b612c337d6e7@5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <b4bd936c-8460-45f9-a733-b612c337d6e7@5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>


wjhonson wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2:16 am, Renia <> wrote:
>> Absolutely agree, Isabelle. This isn't a flame (which you have joined in
>> with) but a simple request to try to be polite to each other on the
>> newsgroup.
>
> And a counter-request to stop reading emotions into messages
> whatsoever.
>
> Every message should be read in an emotionless state. As it's
> intended.

No one mentioned emotions, but seeing as you have, you cannot dictate
different people's states of mind or their thoughts and feelings when
they read your responses to their posts.


> I'm curt and direct. I say your sources are wrong. Some people read
> that as "you are an idiot". That's their fault, not mine.


One can be curt and direct while remaining polite. It's a matter of
written expression and your written expression is rude, even though your
intention is to be helpful.


> I correct mistakes. I point out errors and flaws.


Did anyone ask you to? If you feel obliged to point out errors and
flaws, then so do I, where your errors and flaws are concerned. You are
talking about genealogical errors but I am talking about your newsgroup
attitude. Both are equally valid.


> If that's read as rude, that's the fault of the reader, not the
> writer.


It's the fault of the writer in the way he expresses himself.


This thread: