GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-02 > 1139243358


From: "jlucsoler" <>
Subject: Re: Medieval Lines to Imperial Rome
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:29:18 +0100
References: <2d0.2b2d6bb.31146398@aol.com> <nathanieltaylor-FD702B.21551703022006@news.east.earthlink.net> <002101c6293a$9e9eff60$c4870d44@om.cox.net> <ds2klf$a9a$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu> <006501c629fd$50066960$c4870d44@om.cox.net> <ds55ta$3tn$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu> <002b01c62af1$e8611800$c4870d44@om.cox.net>


i totally agree about this convention.....

oh!!!

there was no trouble with you and christian.... i admire your works... (more
thna you imagine).. but i think, and you do it often, that you have to
inform us about the fraudulent genealogies, how to discover them and about
methods of work.... so that we (maybie) can continue your works with sure
methods and primary sources...

i wish to thanks yoyu and Christian for your help (Christian was so kind and
helpful and patient to explain me lots of trick to detect frauds and how to
works during years!!!!)

i work a lot to learn... and all of you taught me a lot.. but a need more
and more

JL



""Ford Mommaerts-Browne"" <> a crit dans le message de
news: 002b01c62af1$e8611800$...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug McDonald" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Medieval Lines to Imperial Rome
>
>
>> [S]ince the very last line to Doda, and
>> of course the three to Arnulf himself, are dotted, it is pretty
>> clear that here we are not talking absolute proof.
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>>
>
> Yes, and, to tie your post & JL's together - that is THE point of the
> dotted
> lines. To separate hypotheses from certitudes. :) that is why I prefer
> charts to text formats, which latter do not allow so much for this readily
> recognized distinction. Unfortunately, the entire field of DFA's is
> (over)populated with dotted and broken lines. I feel certain that the
> genealogy which Dave & I presented in 'The Anicii of Gaul and Rome' is
> correct. Christian, I know, feels differently. But until proof is
> established, (and it seems to be nastily and spitefully to be not
> forthcoming), we will continue to accept the unpleasant necessity of
> 'dashed' lines. Personally, I should like to see a universal acceptance
> of
> a convention of bold (thick/fat) lines for positive relationships, thin
> lines for probable relationships, broken lines (dashes) for plausible
> relationships, and dots for possible relationships - the varied solidity
> of
> the lines a sort of 'visual onomatopoeia' for the different degrees of
> certainty or credibility.
> Respectfully,
> Ford
>


This thread: