LONDON-L Archives
Archiver > LONDON > 2004-07 > 1089879718
From: "Peter" <>
Subject: Re: [Lon] RE: new subscriber - BELLETTE, BROWN, DIXON & ROBINSON
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:21:58 +0100
References: <Ej2LAKALMc9AFwRV@varneys.demon.co.uk>
Eve
I am at a loss to understand the necessity of your mail, as you have not
addressed the comments I made.
My criticism was with the way in which John B replied, which was showing a
total lack of common courtesy and respect.
The following is the text of my original response:
"No one is suggesting "shielding them from proper advice" - but that advice
should be given in a courteous and polite manner.
I, at times, have been the recipient of emails which I find offensive in
their patronising "I know better than you" tone.
It costs nothing to be courteous, and would save a lot of ill-feeing that
can otherwise be created."
In light of the above, the content of your mail is irrelevant.
You also state:
> I am always suspicious of people who are unwilling to face the music in
> commenting on a public topic by sending secret replies (when the topic
> is not closed).
I believe those people that replied to me in private did so to avoid
unnecessary mails flooding this list. They were not relevant to anyone other
than myself.
Since subscribing to this list I have been amazed at the amount of mail
generated by arguments not relevant to the list name. I am now contributing
to that, if only because you would appear to prefer that I reply to you in
public than in private.
Peter
(Perth, Scotland)
English origins: Davis; Goad; Bennett, Wheeler; Curd; Field; Blanks;
Raven.
Areas: East Sussex; Kent; South & East London
Scots origins: Cumming; Cameron; Grant; Stuart; More; MacLeod; Wilson;
Scott
Areas: Nairn; Moray; Inverness; Banffshire
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eve McLaughlin" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Lon] RE: new subscriber - BELLETTE, BROWN, DIXON & ROBINSON
> In message <00b701c469ea$235dcc70$>, Peter
> <> writes
> >The sender of the original mail made it quite clear she was a new
lister -
> >see the "subject" above.
> but not necessarily new to research, or a feeble little flower or
> unwilling to learn what is feasible and what is not.
> .
> > Even if, in the opinion of other listers, she is
> >not using "common sense", there is no justification for the tone of the
> >reply that she was sent. If J.B. is "copping some flak" he has brought it
on
> >himself by the tone of his response to that new subscriber.
> It would seem vital that there is specific information about the Browns,
> Robinsons and Dixons - otherwise there will be pointless mail , as Anne
> says, concerning families with those common names who are totally
> unrelated. John is in the best position to know that.
> Bellette is another matter, nice and rare, so that any reference could
> be helpful.
>
> >I stand by my previous comments, which have received overwhelming support
> >from many other listers, both on the open list and in private emails.
This thread: